|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE OF SCIENCE IDEAS THROUGH AUTHENTIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH By STEPHEN RANDALL BURGIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Stephen Randall Burgin
3 To the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Fath 3:17). To my wonderful and beautiful wife Rachael for loving me, believing in me and sacrificially supporting me through this process To my remarkably special daughter Leah for constantly and joyfully reminding me that there is the world
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I wish to thank my advisor Dr. Troy Sadl er without whom I never would have left the safety and comfort of my chemist ry classroom. Troy introduced me to my passion for educational research and taught me what it means to be a professional within the science education community. The lessons I have learned from Troy are invaluable and will never be forgotten. Troy has been a wonderful mentor, colleague and friend. Additionally, I wish to than k the rest of my committee members. Dr. Rose Pringle, Dr. Dorene Ross and Dr. Stephen Miller provided me a great deal of support throughout my doctoral studies and my dissertation research. I particularly want to thank Dorene for setting up an accountabili ty group among my class of doctoral students to push us to keep moving through the data analysis and writing process. I offer a special thanks to Dr. Mary Jo Koroly and all of the staff of the Center for Precollegiate Education and Training at the Univers ity of Florida. Additionally, I wish to thank all of the staff and student participants of the Student Science Training Program of the summer of 2 011 I truly consider all of them to be co researchers with me in this project. This dissertation would not ha ve been written without the impact of the faculty and former and current doctoral students of the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. I want to thank Dr. Kent Crippen for always keeping his door open and taking the time to listen to me and provide valuable advice at each stage of the data analysis process. I will always consider Kent to be an honorary member of my dissertation committee. To the doctoral students who have gone before me (Dr. Jeff Boyer, Dr. Jenn Mesa, Dr. Michelle K lostermann, Dr. Jonathan Bostic, Dr. Katie Milton
5 Brkich and Dr. Chris Brkich) thank you for the wonderful examples you have been to me both personally and professionally. I have l earned so much from each of you. Y our dissertations were a pleasure to peru se and provided me with wonderful models for my own writing. To those in my current graduating class whom I have grown close with (Fred Nelson, Karina Hensberry, Katrina Short and Katie Tricarico) thanks for walking through this with me. Finally to those d octoral students not done yet (Tim Barko and Julie Brown), thanks for your friendship and your encouragement. Keep working hard and do not give up. A particular thanks go es to Tim for helping me collect and analyze the data for this study. I could not have done this without him. I would also like to thank my family. In particular, I wish to acknowledge my parents (Ron and Jeanie Burgin and John and Nancy Howell) for the coun tless ways that they have shown their love to me throughout my doctoral studies. Ad ditionally, I would like to thank all of my siblings (Sarah, Patty, Andrew, Denise, Jonathan and Joseph) for being there for me when I needed each of them. I appreciate you all so much. I am particularly grateful for my brother Andrew. I am glad you chose UF and that we got to be students together this past year. Go Gators! Finally, I would like to thank my wife Rachael whom I love with all of my heart. The past three years of my doctoral studies have coincided with some of the most heartbreaking tragedies and inexpressible joys in our life. Rachael was my stability during this rollercoaster ride. I am excited to embark on this next great adventure with her.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 Research Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 21 Nature of Science (NOS) ................................ ................................ .................. 21 Consensus aspects of NOS ................................ ................................ ....... 21 Teaching and learning of NOS ................................ ................................ ... 23 Assessing NOS ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Practical and Formal Epistemologies of Science ................................ .............. 25 Implications for teaching and learning NOS ................................ ............... 26 Implications for assessing NOS ................................ ................................ 27 Authenticity in Science Education as Related to NOS ................................ ...... 28 Authenticity conceptualized ................................ ................................ ........ 28 Bridging the gap between practical and formal epistemologies ................. 30 Research Apprenticeships as Authentic Contexts for Exploration .......................... 31 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 Question 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Sub question 1a ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Sub question 1b ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Sub question 1c ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning ................................ .................... 35 Implicit approach ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 Reflective approach ................................ ................................ ................... 36 Explicit/reflective approach ................................ ................................ ........ 36 Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37 Sub question 2a ................................ ................................ ......................... 37 Sub question 2b ................................ ................................ ......................... 37 Rationale ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 37 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 39 Limitations of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 40
7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 43 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 43 Research Apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 Research Apprenticeships as Canonically Authentic Contexts ........................ 47 Me ntor ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 48 Curriculum design ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 Institutional constraints ................................ ................................ .............. 52 Learner P erceptions of Research Apprenticeship Outcomes ........................... 53 Science identity formation ................................ ................................ .......... 54 Development of knowledge and skills ................................ ........................ 59 Nature of Science (NOS) ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 NOS Conceptualized ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 Measurement/Assessment of NOS ................................ ................................ .. 65 Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning ................................ .................... 66 NOS in Research Apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ......... 67 Implicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in Research Apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ............................. 67 Gains from implicit approaches in research apprenticeships ..................... 68 Limited or no gains from an implicit approach in research apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ....................... 82 Explicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in Research Apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ............................. 92 Gains from explicit approaches in research apprenticeships ..................... 92 Limited or no gains from an explicit approach in non formal settings ......... 95 NOS in School Science ................................ ................................ ........................... 96 Explicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in School Science .......... 97 Gains from explicit approaches in school science ................................ ...... 97 Limited or no gains from explicit approaches in school science ............... 103 Implicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in School Science ........ 104 Gains from implicit approaches in school science ................................ .... 104 Limited or no gains from implicit approaches in school science ............... 105 Studies Comparing Various Approaches in School Science Settings ................... 109 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 119 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ 128 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 128 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................. 131 Question 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 131 Sub question 1a ................................ ................................ ....................... 131 Sub question 1b ................................ ................................ ....................... 131 Sub question 1c ................................ ................................ ....................... 131 Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 132 Sub question 2a ................................ ................................ ....................... 132 Sub question 2b ................................ ................................ ....................... 132 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 133
8 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 133 Population and Sampling ................................ ................................ ................ 136 Interventions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 138 Implicit approach ................................ ................................ ...................... 139 Reflective approach ................................ ................................ ................. 139 Explicit/reflective approach ................................ ................................ ...... 140 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 142 Ideas about Science Survey (ISS) ................................ ........................... 142 Case studies ................................ ................................ ............................ 147 Mentor interviews ................................ ................................ ..................... 151 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 152 ISS analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 152 Application of constructivist grounde d theory ................................ ........... 155 Criteria for Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ............ 158 Credibility ................................ ................................ ................................ 159 Origi nality ................................ ................................ ................................ 159 Resonance ................................ ................................ ............................... 160 Usefulness ................................ ................................ ............................... 160 Subjectivity Statement ................................ ................................ .......................... 161 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 164 4 CHANGES IN PARTICIPANT NOS IDEAS ................................ .......................... 175 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 175 NOS Ideas Revealed through the ISS ................................ ................................ .. 175 Pre experience NOS Ideas ................................ ................................ ............. 176 Post experience NOS Ideas ................................ ................................ ........... 177 Changes in NOS Ideas ................................ ................................ ................... 178 Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon Rank Sum Analysis Results ................................ .... 179 McNemar Analysis Results ................................ ................................ ............. 180 Limitations of Written Survey Results ................................ ................................ ... 181 Instances of Re flective and Implicit change ................................ .................... 181 Mismatch between Written Survey Responses and Survey Interview Data ... 182 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 183 5 FACTORS INFLUENCING CHANGES IN PARTICIPANT NOS IDEAS ............... 194 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 194 T heoretical Codes ................................ ................................ ................................ 194 Authentic Action ................................ ................................ ............................. 195 Being Treated Authentically ................................ ................................ ............ 195 Feelings of Authenticity ................................ ................................ .................. 196 Case Study Reports ................................ ................................ .............................. 196 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 197 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 197 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 198 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 199
9 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 199 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 200 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 201 Being treated authentically ................................ ................................ ....... 203 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 204 Summa ry ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 205 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 206 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 206 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 208 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 208 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 209 Self reported cha nges in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 209 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 211 Being treated authentically ................................ ................................ ....... 212 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 213 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 214 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 216 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 216 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 217 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 218 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 219 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 219 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 222 Being treated authentically ................................ ................................ ....... 225 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 225 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 226 ................................ ................................ ............................... 227 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 227 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 228 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 228 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 229 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 229 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 231 Being treated authen tically ................................ ................................ ....... 234 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 236 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 237 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 238 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 238 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 240 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 240 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 241
10 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 241 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 243 Being treated authentically ................................ ................................ ....... 245 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 246 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 247 ................................ ................................ ................................ 248 Background ................................ ................................ .............................. 248 Laboratory description ................................ ................................ ............. 250 Project description ................................ ................................ ................... 250 Changes in NOS ideas ................................ ................................ ............ 250 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 251 Authentic action ................................ ................................ ....................... 252 Being treated authentically ................................ ................................ ....... 254 Feelings of authenticity ................................ ................................ ............ 256 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 258 Constructed Theory ................................ ................................ .............................. 259 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 261 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 272 Overview of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 272 Discussion of Main Findings ................................ ................................ ................. 274 Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning ................................ .................. 274 Implicit and Explicit NOS Messages ................................ ............................... 278 Authenticity in Research Science ................................ ................................ ... 281 Action ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 282 Treatment/mentorship ................................ ................................ .............. 285 Feelings/identity ................................ ................................ ....................... 286 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 288 For Authentic Research Experiences ................................ ............................. 288 For Science Education ................................ ................................ ................... 290 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 291 For Developers of Authentic Research Experiences ................................ ...... 291 For School Science ................................ ................................ ........................ 294 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 295 Suggestions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ......... 297 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 299 APPENDIX A REFLECTIVE JOURNAL PROMPTS ................................ ................................ ... 302 B IDEAS ABOUT SCIENCE SURVEY AND FOLLOW UP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 304
11 C CASE STUDY SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ....................... 307 D CASE STUDY OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ................................ ....................... 310 E MENTOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ 311 F IDEAS ABOUT SCIENCE SURVEY CODING RUBRIC ................................ ....... 313 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 317 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 328
12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Studies reporting on impacts on NOS ideas in the context of research apprenticeships ................................ ................................ ................................ 123 2 2 Studies reporting on impacts on NOS ideas in the context of school settings .. 125 2 3 Studies comparing various approaches to imp acting NOS ideas in school settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 126 3 1 Characteristics of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) .......................... 166 3 2 Case study part icipants ................................ ................................ .................... 167 3 3 NOS interventions ................................ ................................ ............................ 168 3 4 Explicit NOS activities and targeted NOS aspects used in the explicit/reflective semina r ................................ ................................ ................. 169 3 5 Data collection and analysis phases during and immediately following the research apprenticeship experience ................................ ................................ 171 3 6 Exam ples of initial, focused and theoretical codes ................................ ........... 172 4 1 Examples of written science survey responses and ratings ............................. 185 4 2 Participan t pre NOS understandings by aspect as revealed on written science surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ 186 4 3 Participant post NOS understandings by aspect as revealed on written science surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ 187 4 4 Participant known changes in NOS understandings by aspect as revealed on written science surveys ................................ ................................ .................... 188 4 5 Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon Rank Sum analysis o f science survey data ............... 189 4 6 McNemar analysis of science survey data. ................................ ...................... 190 4 7 Case study pre NOS understandings. Comparison of wr itten surveys with survey interviews. ................................ ................................ ............................. 191 4 8 Case study post NOS understandings. Comparison of written surveys with survey interviews. ................................ ................................ ............................. 192 4 9 Case study changes in NOS understandings. Comparison of written surveys with survey interviews. ................................ ................................ ...................... 193
13 5 1 Case study data source abbreviations. ................................ ............................. 262 5 2 Representative data of positive NOS change: Jane ................................ ......... 2 63 5 3 Representative data of positive NOS change: Isabel ................................ ....... 264 5 4 Representative data of positive NOS change: Tom ................................ .......... 265 5 5 Representative data of positive NOS change: Jennifer ................................ .... 266 5 6 Representative data of positive NOS change: John ................................ ......... 267 5 7 Representative data of positive NOS change: Joseph ................................ ..... 268
14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Theoretical Framework: The relationship between formal and practical nature of science (NOS) understandings as authenticity increases in science research experiences. ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 2 1 Concept map illustrating literature review organization. ................................ ... 127 3 1 NOS teaching and learning interventions in the context of a research apprenticeship experience. ................................ ................................ ............... 173 3 2 Data sources from which case studies are built ................................ ................ 174 5 1 Continuum of authenticity for case study participants in terms of action (A), Feelings (F) and Treatment (T). ................................ ................................ ........ 269 5 2 Impacts from explicit and implicit messages on participant NOS ideas in the context of the AESP. ................................ ................................ ........................ 270 5 3 Relationships between authentic treatment, participant characteristics, action and impacts from implicit messages on participant NOS ideas in the context of the AESP. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 271
15 LIST OF ABB REVIATIONS AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science AESP Authentic Experiences in Science Program ISS Ideas about Science Survey NOS Nature of Science NRC National Research Council PI Principle Investigator VNOS Views of the Nature of Scien ce Questionnaire
16 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE OF SCIENCE IDEAS THROUGH AUT HENTIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH By Stephen Randall Burgin August 2012 Chair: Rose Pringle Major: Curriculum and Instruction Understanding the ways in which scientific knowledge develops, or the epistemology of science, is believed to be a crucial component o f scientific literacy. This construct is more formally known as Nature of Science (NOS) with in the science education community. The merits of three different approaches to NOS teaching and learning in the context of authentic scientific research on high sc hool student participants NOS ideas were explored in this study These approaches were an explicit/reflective approach, a reflective approach and an implicit approach. The effectiveness of explicit approaches over implicit approaches has been demonstrated in school contexts, but little is known regarding the merits of these approaches when the practices that learners engage in are highly authentic in the ways in which they model the work of professional scientists. If an implicit approach yields positive i mpacts in authentic contexts, then which specific factors within those conte xts are influential in doing so? The Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP), a summer program designed for high school students offered at a major research university of fered a wonderful context for an investigation of these issues. In this program, high school
17 students work ed an authentic research project. Additionally, seminars offered through the pr ogram provided a venue for the implementation of the three aforementioned NOS teaching and learning approaches. An open ended questionn aire designed to assess responde nt NOS ideas was administered to 30 participants of the AESP both at the beginning and ag ain at the end of the program. From those thirty, si x case study p articipants were selected and t hrough a series of observations and interviews, influential factors impacting their NOS ideas within their specific laboratory placement s were identified. Re sults of categorical data analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the changes in NOS ideas exhibited by the participants who experience d the explicit/reflective approach were significantly different from the changes in NOS ideas exhibited by the parti cipants who experienced either of the other two approaches. Specifically changes related to participant s understandings of the distinctions between theories and laws in science and the myth of the scientific method were significantly and positively impac ted for the participants who experienced the explicit/reflective approach. Additionally case study participants who experienced either of the other two approaches demonstrated changes in their understandings of many NOS aspects (e.g. subjectivity, creativ ity, empirical NOS). Authentic action on the part of these participants was linked to these positive NOS changes. That authentic action was more influential when the participants were treated in authentic ways and developed feelings of authenticity. The fi ndings prompted a discussion of i mplications and recommendations for NOS teaching and learning in both school contexts and authentic contexts
18 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM Introduction The primary goal of science education is the preparation of a scientifically l iterate society (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). Both the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1993) and the National Science Education Sta ndards (National Research Council (NRC), 1996) were created in an effort to provide guidelines that would enable this goal to be reached for all elementary and secondary students of science in the United States. Participation in the practice s of science an d the development of understandings about science as a way of knowing are two important components of the suggestions offered in these documents and in the latest reform document that will provide a framework for the next generation of science standards (N RC, 2012). The practices of science are typically referr ed to as scientific inquiry and understandings about science as a way of knowing are more formally known is defined in this report as an activ e process of data analysis in order to answer an empirical question that can occur in various settings including school based laboratories along a continuum of epistemic involvement on the part of the learner (Germann, Haskins & Auls, 1996; Herron, 1971; S chwab, 1962). Epistemic involvement is defined in this study as the degree to which a learner takes an active role in the development of guiding research questions and the decision making process that takes place as scientific inquiries are conducted. NOS as a construct will be defined in further detail in a subsequent section of this chapter
19 Scientific inquiry and NOS are overlapping constructs in science education reform documents (NRC, 2007; 2012) In them, it is clear that science educators and other s on the part of science learners of all ages is at least partially related to their understandings of how knowledge is developed in the enterprise of science. This belief is clearl y articulated in Taking Science to School (NRC, 2007). In a review of the literature, citing multiple learning strategies of investigation, children can engage in designing and conducting Several science educators disagree with the notion that participation in science practice of limited supporting empirical evidence (Aydeniz, Baksa & Skinner, 2010; Bell, Matkins & Gansneder, 2010; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Lederman, 2007; Yacoubian & BouJoaude, 2010). It has also been argued that the amount of overlap between participat ion in and understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge is dependent on the participate in scientific investigations that progressively approximate good scie nce, then However, a number of science educators question the degree to which school science actually does resemble professional science and therefore naturally question the impact of scientific inquiry on NOS understandings in these settings (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hogan, 2000; Osborne, 2002; Sandoval, 2005).
20 Where science educators seem to be in unanimous agreement with science education reform documents is on the sta ted value of experiences in scientific inquiry as contexts for reflective thought on NOS doing science, becoming more sophisticated in conducting investigations, and explaining their findings, students will accumulate a set of concrete experiences on which they can draw to reflect provided with opportunities to reflect on the similarities and the differences between their own participation in science pract ice s and the way s in which professional scientists construct knowledge, then perhaps understandings of NOS can be impacted (Sandoval, 2005). This emphasis on reflection within the science education community has been informed by the works of Dewey (1933), Schn (1983; 1987) and Zeichner and Liston (1987) and has resulted in reflective thought being defined as an active decision making process taking place in various situations for the purposes of empowerment. This study aims to examine the relationship bet ween supported participation in scientific inquiry (including supports for reflection) and the development of understandings about science as a way of knowing. The remainder of this chapter focuses on a discussion of the key research issues that will be ad dressed in this investigation (NOS teaching, learning and assessment; practical and formal epistemologies of science; and authenticity in science education). Additionally, this chapter contains a discussion of research apprenticeships and other authentic r esearch experiences in science as a context for the exploration of these research issues. The chapter concludes with an overview of the theoretical framework for the study, the problem on which this research is focused, the specific research questions and sub
21 questions driving this investigation and a rationale for them, as well as the significance and limitations of this study. Research Issues Nature of Science (NOS) The development of sophisticated NOS understandings has been and still is a nearly univer sally valued objective of K 12 science education for a variety of reasons. assumptions inherent to the development 1987, p. 721). As pre viously discussed, the development of appropriate understandings of NOS among K 12 science students has been connected to scientific literacy and as such is featured prominently in science education reform documents (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). It has been arg ued that a sophisticated understanding of science (including NOS) by the general public results in benefits for, amongst other things, science, economies, individuals, democracy, society and morality (Thomas & Durant, 1987). Driver, Leach, Millar and Scott (1996) summarize these benefits when they make economic, utilitarian, democratic, cultural and moral arguments for the importance of NOS understandings. Although the empirical evidence supporting these arguments for NOS are scant (Lederman, 2007), researc h indicating that student held conceptions of NOS are linked to decision making strategies regarding socio scientific issues such as global climate change lend them some merit (Sadler, Chambers & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002). Co nsensus aspects of NOS Perhaps the clearest rationale for an inclusion of NOS instruction in K 12 education is the consistent demonstration of inadequate understandings of NOS by both
22 students and teachers of science (Lederman, 1992; Lederman, 2007). In or der to make such claims and evaluate any intervening efforts to influence positive change in NOS understandings, it becomes important to identify and establish consensus aspects of NOS that can be explicitly targeted for both instruction and assessment. A number of science educators have made efforts to generate lists of consensus aspects of NOS that are commonly held beliefs and values among informed stakeholders with in the science education community (Lederman, Abd El Khalick, Bell & Schwartz, 2002; Osbo rne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar & Duschl 2003; Sandoval, 2005; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008). L ederman et al. (2002) identified seven aspects of NOS that were used to generate a questionnaire for assessing NOS understandings. These consensus aspects are the e mpirical nature of scientific knowledge, the distinctions and relationships between scientific theories and laws, the creative and imaginative nature of scientific knowledge, the theory laden nature of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural embedded ness of scientific knowledge, the myth of the scientific method and the tentative nature of scientific know ledge. Sandoval (2005) condensed this list into four aspects of NOS. These are the construction of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scientific methods, the different forms of scientific knowledge (including hypotheses, models, theories and laws) and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. It i s used to organize the discussion of NOS in the reform document Ta king Science to School (NRC, 2007). Regardless of the specific number of NOS aspects, consensus lists such as these hold many common features. Chief among them are an understanding of the social construction of scientific knowledge, the vast
23 diversity of m ethods employed by scientists as they construct scientific knowledge and the ever evolving state of scientific knowledge. The existence of such consensus aspects has been called into question on the grounds of different perspectives among philosophers of s cience regarding which aspects to include (Alters, 1997). Others argue that more agreement than disagreement actually does exist and that any points of contention are regarding abstract philosophical perspectives that have little bearing on K 12 science ed ucation (Lederman, 2007; Sandoval, 2005; Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas & Clough, 1997). In fact, empirical evidence has recently revealed that there does exist at least some general level of consensus regarding various aspects of NOS among a variety of st akeholders in science education including philosophers of science (Osborne et al., 2003) and that practicing scientists, regardless of their specific science discipline, hold more sophisticated understandings regarding many of these aspects than not (Schwa rtz & Lederman, 2008; Wong & Hodson, 2009; Wong & Hodson, 2010). Teaching and learning of NOS Although science educators have established some consensus regarding sophisticated understandings of various NOS aspects, they continue to debate over how to bes t develop such understandings among K 12 science students. In general, one of two approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS are taken. These are the implicit approach and the explicit/reflective approach. The first of these, the implicit approach, is based on the assumption that participation in scientific inquiry in and of itself will have a positive influence on NOS understandings. Although participation in hands on science is often assumed by science educators to be related to the development of NOS there is very little empirical
24 evidence that supports such a claim (Lederman, 2007). In fact, research indicates that an implicit approach is not linked to the development of informed NOS understandings even in the context of a problem based high school science course (Moss, 2001). The second approach to impacting learner understandings of NOS is the explicit/reflective approach. This approach involves explicit instruction of consensus aspects of NOS and provides opportunities for specific learner reflec tion on them as they relate to classroom embedded activities (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) that may or may not involve participation in science inquiry. This approach is not to be confused with traditional forms of direct instruction in which a teacher acts as an authoritarian figure telling students what the true aspects of NOS are. Rather, the explicit in the explicit/reflective approach refers to an intentionality regarding the planning of lessons to allow learners to meet explicit instructional obje ctives that relate to accepted NOS understandings. Empirical research has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach in a variety of instructional settings (Akerson & Volrich, 2006; Akerson, Abd El Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Bell et al., 2010; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJoaude, 2010). Very few studies have attempted to directly compare the impact of both of these approaches. Those studies that have been conducted in secondary school science classrooms reveal more substantial NOS gai ns as a result of an explicit/reflective approach when compared to any gains in NOS from an implicit approach due to participation in science inquiry alone (e.g. Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010).
25 Assessing NOS Traditionally, NO S understandings have been assessed by utilizing pen and paper instruments on which participants respond to multiple choice questions or rank their agreement or disagreement with given statements which can then be analyzed quantitatively (Cooley & Klopfer, 1963; Rubba & Anderson, 1978). The validity of using such instruments to assess understandings of NOS has been called into question on the basis of the design of these instruments (Lederman, Wade & Bell, 1998). Lederman et al. (1998) argue that these inst ruments measure the degree to which student understandings of NOS align to the perspectives of the developers of the instruments themselves and do not provide students with an opportunity to express and explain their own perspectives of NOS. In response to such critiques, new open ended questionnaires have been developed that provide students with an opportunity to describe their own feelings in regard to consensus NOS aspects (Lederman et al., 2002). When coupled with follow up interviews, open ended quest ionnaires can be qualitatively analyzed in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of student NOS beliefs. Practical and Formal Epistemologies of Science There exists a growing perspective among science educators that student understandings of NOS are s ituational (Elby & Hammer, 2001; Hogan, 2000; Sandoval, science shape an understanding of scientific epistemologies that may not be necessarily linked to their understand ings of how professional scientists construct knowledge and the nature of that knowledge. Hogan (2000) uses the terms proximal
26 proximal understandings of NOS involve their own perceptions of their personal involvement in the generation of scientific knowledge. Distal understandings refer to student conceptions of a distant professional science within which they may or may not have had direct experience. Sandoval (2005) makes a similar argument when he suggests that students hold both practical and formal epistemologies of science. inquiry and the associated creation of scientific knowledge. Formal epistemologies (like professional science. Implications for teaching and learning NOS If students potentially hold two distinct views about NOS, then this has implicatio ns for the ways in which NOS is taught in K 12 science education. Participation in inquiry alone may not influence student understandings of professional science if student understandings of NOS in these contexts are compartmentalized. It may be the case t hat student practical conceptions of NOS are so far removed from their formal conceptions of NOS that it would be quite challenging to influence both types of understandings simultaneously. Empirical evidence seems to point to the existence of such a cha llenge in school settings due to the contextual nature of NOS understandings (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). It is not altogether surprising then that interventions which may in fact be influencing student practical conceptions of N OS do not seem to be impacting student understandings of formal NOS (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). One suggested response is to provide explicit opportunities for discourse about NOS in an effort to bring student talk during their own inquiry and student talk about professional scientific practice closer
27 together (Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). Engaging students in reflective thought could be a key component of facilitating the teaching and learning of both practical and formal NOS understandings (Sandoval, 2005). Implications for assessing NOS The commonly used formal assessments of NOS (Cooley & Klopfer, 1963; Lederman et al., 2002; Rubba & Anderson, 1978) are believed by some to be attempts to measure student conceptions of t he nature of professional scientific knowledge generation without attending to students personal conceptions of NOS (Hogan, 2000; Sandoval, 2005). Hogan (2000) discusses how these assessments focus almost exclusively on measures of distal NOS understandin gs without providing opportunities for students to make explicit connections to their own participation in science. Sandoval (2005) similarly argues that these assessments are disconnected from student participation in the practice of science and that they responses to questions about a distant professional science reveal learner conceptions about their own participation in science inquiry and knowl edge construction. What students believe about their own participation in science and their perspectives of professional science are one and the same from this point of view. If students hold distinct views of NOS in different contexts, then such an assume d coherence is not necessarily valid. Sandoval suggests a more ethnographic approach to the assessment of NOS that is embedded in the context of authentic scientific practice. This approach involves the use of open ended interviews and the study of student discourse and artifacts produced as a result of student participation in scientific research.
28 Authenticity in Science Education as Related to NOS Authenticity in science education is no easy term to define. As Bencze and Hodson (1999) point out, authenti difficulty in reaching a consensus understanding of authenticity is due to the situated nature of scientific experiences within different cultures that are experiencing them (Martin, Kass & Brouwer, 1990). What is authentic in one context could be quite inauthentic in another. The following discussion of authenticity will focus specifically on authenticity within science inq uiry experiences in school settings. Authenticity conceptualized One of the earlier attempts at defining authenticity in science education was made features with thos listed five key features that scientific inquiries conducted in school settings ought to share with professional science practice in order for them to be classified as authentic. These characteristics are the ill defined nature of the problem driving a scientific investigation, the uncertainty accompanying the social nature of scientific knowledge generation, a taking into account the prior knowledge of the learners, participation by the learners within a comm unity of inquiry and the presence of more knowledgeable experts within that community of inquiry from whom learners can gain deeper understanding of the scientific knowledge involved in their inquiry. Chinn and Malhotra (2002), similarly argue that authent ic scientific inquiry in school settings ought to closely resemble the actual work of practicing scientists. They provide a theoretical framework for evaluating the authenticity of inquiry tasks that is
29 based on the cognitive processes involved in their en actment and the epistemology that guides them. The cognitive processes involved in authentic inquiry according to Chinn and Malhotra (2002) are the generation of research questions, the designing of studies, observation making, explaining results, developi ng theories and studying other and revising purposes of scientific research, the coordination of data with scientific theory, the theory laden nature of research meth ods, rational responses to anomalous data, nonalgorithmic and uncertain reasoning and the social construction of knowledge. An additional characteristic of authentic scientific inquiry discussed by science educators is the centrality of language (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Osborne, 2002). In particular, the practice of professional science depends on specific forms of discourse. These involve certain structures for argumentative conversation and written communication within authentic scientific inquiries. B uxton (2006) discusses a canonical perspective regarding authentic scientific practice in school settings. This perspective relies on stakeholders outside of the realm of education, namely the professional scientific community, to provide the parameters of authenticity. The parameters include both the questions and the methods that drive scientific inquir y. Buxton (2006) identifies the work of Chinn & Malhotra (2002) as being representative of this perspective. This present study t akes a canonical perspecti ve of authenticity in science education. According to the canonical perspective of authenticity, the typical school science activity is far from authentic due to its dissimilarities to professional science. A number of reasons are given for the difference s between scientific inquiry in school settings and
30 the practices of professional science that result in this inauthenticity. Among these reasons are an over reliance on highly structured curricular laboratory activities that require very limited epistemic involvement on the part of learners (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Herron, 1971; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004); institutional constraints of public schools including limits in resources, inflexible scheduling, unsupportive administrators and large class sizes (Abd El Khalick, BouJaoude, Duschl, Lederman, Mamlok Naamon, Hofstein, Niaz, Treagust & Tuan, 2004; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004); and the pressure faced by science teachers to use laboratory activities as a pedagogical tool to deliver scientific content in order t o prepare students to perform well on high stakes standardized assessments (Abd El Khalick et al., 2004; Bencze & Hodson, 1993; Haigh, France & Forret, 2005). Bridging the gap between practical and formal epistemologies It follows from the above discussion of canonical authenticity, that authenticity may be a factor that bridges the gap between formal and practical epistemologies of science (Sandoval, can be said to be between formal and practical epistemologies of science becomes a more valid assumption. When students have practical experiences conducting work that closely resembles that of professional scientists, then t heir practical understandings of NOS are more closely related to their formal understandings of NOS. This relationship between practical and formal epistemologies of science in authentic contexts has implications for the teaching, learning and assessment o f NOS. For example, assessments designed to measure student conceptions of formal NOS become valid tools for examining the
31 impacts of participation in scientific inquiry on student conceptions of practical NOS when the context is an authentic one. Research Apprenticeships as Authentic Contexts for Exploration Recently, the science education community has recognized the value of experiences outside of the formal science curriculum in introducing secondary students to authentic scientific practices (Braund & Reiss, 2006). One emerging extra curricular experience in science education is that of the research apprenticeship. Research professional setting outside of the context of th e traditional curriculum on professional scientific research (Barab & Hay, 2001). Apprenticeship experiences typically take place in working science laboratories on university campuses where the learner is included within a particular laboratory research g roup and is mentored by a professional scientist within that group as they work together on a meaningful scientific inquiry project. The participants in these research projects seek previously unknown solutions to ill defined questions or problems, the res ults of which hold value to the broader scientific community. In addition to the specific research investigation within a working science lab oratory some research apprenticeships are accompanied by extra laboratory experiences such as seminars where stude nts are introduced to a variety of topics that may include an explicit examination of NOS constructs (Schwartz, Lederman & Crawford, 2004). Due to the professional context in which scientific inquiry is conducted in a research apprenticeship and the ill de fined nature of the research question being investigated, these experiences are among the most canonically authentic experiences in which a secondary learner can participate.
32 A recent review of the literature presents an overview of the empirical evidence indicating that research apprenticeships have the potential to impact secondary student discourse practices, understandings of NOS, scientific content knowledge, science motivation and confidence and career aspirations among other reported benefits (Sadle r, Burgin, McKinney & Ponjuan, 2010). Of particular interest to this present study are those empirical research studies discussed in the literature review mentioned above that specifically investigate the impact of participation in research apprenticeships on learner conceptions of NOS (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bell, Blair, Crawford & Lederman, 2003; Bleicher, 1996; Charney, Hmelo Silver, Sover, Neigeborn, Coletta & Nemeroff, 2007; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999; Schwartz et a l., 2004). Most of the studies investigate the impact of an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning in these contexts. Only two of the studies specifically investigate the impact of an explicit/reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning during a research apprenticeship (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). None of the studies systematically compare the impact of varying approaches to NOS teaching and learning in the context of a research apprenticeship as do studies investigating this relationship in the context of school science (Bell et al., 2010; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). Additionally, the majority of these studies rely on qualitative analysis of participant self reported data in making claims abou t the impact of research apprenticeship programs on NOS understandings. That being the case, a few studies use more targeted questionnaires and follow up interviews as NOS assessments in these contexts (Bell et al., 2003; Bell et al., 2010; Schwartz et al. 2004).
33 Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on a cognitive apprenticeship model (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) and situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The idea behind both of these perspectives is that lear ning and cognition are situated and cannot be understood apart from the context and culture in which they take place. Situated learning has implications for the notions of authenticity as discussed above. Brown et al. (1989), discuss authentic experiences authentic experiences are quite typical of research apprenticeships and are even possible in traditional school settings. Brown et al. (1989) di scuss the possibilities of a cognitive apprenticeship model in school settings where teachers mentor their students particular culture ( e.g. science ). Lave and Wenger (1991) descr ibe how a learner within an apprenticeship type experience transitions from an outside observer to an insider with the full rights and responsibilities of any other member within a community of community of practice. It follows from this theoretical lens that when learners participate in canonically authentic scientific inquiry, they themselves become legitimated within the community of professional scientific practice and may even form identities of themselves as scientists. experiences with the construction of scientific knowledge) and their conceptions of how professional scientists construct knowledge may be equivalent. In order for this to be the case, a learner must have the self perception that his or her own experiences
34 practicing science are in fact representative of professional science practices It is the relationship between authentic ity and formal and practical understandings of NOS that provides the theoretical basis for this study. Figure 1 1 illustrates the theoretical framework for this study. In it, formal and practical understandings of NOS are disconnected from each other in i nauthentic situations. However, as the authenticity of a science experience increases, these two constructs begin to overlap. In theory, in a highly canonically authentic context, a f formal NOS and practical NOS c ould be completel y overlapping. These overlapping NOS ideas serve as the targets for investigation in this particular research study. This theoretical framework is important in that it legitimizes formal NOS in an effort to measure students NOS ideas that are informed by both a practical and a formal understanding as potentially influenced by participation in the practice s of professional science. It must be emphasized that the framework does not im ply that in informed. Rather, learner understandings can be nave, informed or anywhere between. The framework does highlight that in canonically authentic situations, Problem Statement The above discussion establishes research apprenticeships as canonically authentic scie ntific contexts that are suitable settings for comparative investigations of the impacts of various approaches to influencing participant understandings of NOS. Such comparative investigations have yet to be conducted in these settings.
35 Additionally, there is very limited understanding of the role that reflection plays in influencing NOS understandings of participants in research apprenticeships. Other factors in addition to specifically designed pedagogical strategies for the teaching and learning of NOS i n the context of research apprenticeships may influence participant conceptions of NOS, but these have yet to be specifically identified. The findings of this research study provide a deeper understanding of the answers to these problems. Research Question s Question 1 What are the impacts of various approaches (implicit approach, reflective approach and explicit/reflective approach) to NOS teaching and learning on participant NOS ideas in the context of a research apprenticeship program? Sub question 1a D o various approaches to NOS teaching and learning result in a ny significant changes in participan Sub question 1b Are there significant differences in participant participant s experiencing different approaches to NOS teaching and learning? Sub question 1c How are changes in NOS ideas different for participant s experiencing different approaches to NOS teaching and learning? Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning Research question one was int ended to guide an investigation of three specific approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of a research apprenticeship. The three approaches are briefly operationalized below.
36 Implicit approach In the implicit approach to NOS teachin g and learning, no explicit instruction designed around individual NOS aspects is provided to the participant learners. Additionally, students do not encounter formal venues for reflecting on how their own experiences in authentic scientific inquiry are re lated to NOS. Students experiencing this approach in this study were pa rticipants in a seminar that was neither explicit nor reflective in regard to NOS. Reflective approach In a reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning, students are not explicitl y introduced to individual NOS aspects. However, unl ike in the implicit approach, these students are provided with structured opportunities to reflect on the ways in which their own participation within the practices of professional science relate to their understandings of knowledge generation within science. These reflections are individual rather than collabor ative. The prompts guiding the reflective opportunities given in this study were constructed in ways that were general and did not explicitly refer ence individual NOS aspects. These structured reflective opportunities were provided to the participants in this study through a seminar that was not explicitly designed to introduce them to NOS aspects. Explicit/reflective approach In the context a res earch apprenticeship, an explicit/reflective approach to the teaching and learning of NOS involves instruction that has been explicitly designed to introduce students to consensus NOS aspects through a variety of activities and to subsequently provide oppo rtunities for reflection. Participants experiencing this approach in this study reflected individually using the same journal prompts used in the
37 reflective approach. Additionally, the students were participating in collaborative reflective discussions lin king activities to specific explicitly encountered NOS aspects. In this study, the explicit/reflective approach was conducted in the context of a seminar. Question 2 How are participant laboratory placements during a research apprenticeship program? Sub question 2a What are the influencing factors that relate to changes in participant Sub question 2b How are the influencing factors related to changes in participant Rational e These research questions were written based on the assumption that due to the canonically authentic nature of research apprenticeships any attempt to investigate learner conceptions of NOS would be practi as used in the theoretical framework, research questions and sub questions, is referring Question one and the sub questions that follow are of particular importance to the science education community in that the results of a systematic comparison of various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of a research apprenticeship program have yet to be published Studies of the influence that research apprenticeships have on NOS understandings typically either examine an implicit approach or an explicit/reflective approach to the teaching and learning of NOS independently from one another ( e.g Bel l et al.,2003; Schwartz et al., 2004).
38 Additionally, very few studies have examined the impact of reflection on secondary learners conceptions of NOS (Barab & Hay, 2001; Wagner & Levin, 2007). For this reason the reflective approach was developed. The imp ortance of this particular approach becomes clear in light of previous attempts to examine the impact of participation in research apprenticeship program s on learner conceptions of NOS through an implicit approach that have been inconclusive. In one resear ch study in unaffected by an implicit approach, one participant did demonstrate gains in NOS understandings (Bell et al., 2003). The authors attribute these gains in NOS und erstandings to reflective opportunities that were provided to this learner by the mentor scientist. However, the role that reflection actually played was not systematically investigated. It is important to recognize that factors in addition to specific pe dagogical strategies for the teaching and learning of NOS may be influential in affecting student conceptions of NOS. Research question two and the sub questions that follow drive an investigation of these factors. If research apprenticeships do impact stu dent conceptions of NOS through an implicit approach, then an examination of this research question may reveal which aspects of the experience are influential in doing so. Previous research has identified collaboration within a community of scientific prac tice (Bleicher, 1996; Burgin, Sadler & Koroly, 2011; Richmond & Kurth, 1999), communication between the participant and his or her mentor (Bleicher, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999), interest in the research project (Burgin et al., 2011) and epistemic involvemen t in the formulation of research questions and methodological design (Ryder
39 & Leach, 1999) as possible factors that influence research apprenticesh NOS ideas. It was expected that some of these factors m ight have be en at play in this partic ular research apprenticeship and indeed, they were specifically looked for as research question two was investigated. However, an ethnographic approach to examini ng this research question left room for the identification of additional influential factors Additionally, an inve stigation of research question two and its sub questions could have revealed the possible role of identity formation as an influencing factor within this research apprenticeship experience. Do student participants view themselves as le gitimate members within a community of practicing scientists? On the other hand, do they perceive themselves to be outsiders who are just visiting the laboratory in which N OS ideas? The answers to questions like these could be used to place the participants in this study along the continuum of authenticity that is described by the theoretical f ramework and is represented in F igure 1 1. This would allow for claims regarding t he understandings and the role of this overlap on influencing change in participant NOS ideas. Significance of Study This study is significant in th at the results obtained from it add greatly to current understandings of the relationship between participation in authentic scientific experiences like research apprenticeship programs and the development of sophisticated conceptions of NOS. A systematic comparison of various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS had yet to be conducted in the setting of a research
40 appre nticeship program Such a comparison had the potential to greatly inform the development of supplemental experiences within research apprenticeships similar to t he conceptions of NOS thereby i mpacting their scientific lite racy. The results of this study also had the power to inform the understanding of the role that reflect ion plays in influencin g NOS ideas. This study also had the potential to reveal specific factors of research apprenticeships that may impact participant NOS ideas. In addition to suggestions for the design of future research apprenticeships, the results of this study also were shown to have provide d further rationale for the inclusion of increasingly authentic science activities in school settings in an effort to influence student NOS ideas. Limitations of Study One of the limitations of this study wa s the degree to which the various instructional approaches investigated through research question one c ould actually be controlled. For example, the degree to which reflection in and of itself explicitly influenced NOS understandings limited the design of the re flective approach and the efforts to investigate the impact of reflection apart from the impact of explicit attention to NOS aspects. In an effort to account for this limitation, reflective prompts for this group were care fully designed in ways that were g eneral and did not explicitly instruct participants in regard to specific NOS aspects. Similarly, explicit NOS instruction can occur in a variety of settings and through unplanned naturally occurring discussions. There was no way to accoun t for all interac tions that took place between students, mentor scientists and seminar instructors during this expe rience. Although efforts were made to reasonably account for such explicit interaction through observations and
41 interviews, attributing gains in NOS to the im pact of participation in scientific inquiry through an implicit approach was somewhat limited. Additionally, this study wa s limited by the specific situated nature of the particular re search apprenticeship that serve d as the context for this study. The pa rticipants in this study were highly motivated and successful learners of science and did not represent the broad sampling of students found in traditional secondary science school settings. As such, the findings have limited translation to all learners fo und within school science settings. Additionally, the support offered to students within a research apprenticeship (e.g extended time, lack of formal assessment pressures, one on one mentorship, highly sophisticated and expensi ve laboratory equipment, etc .) wa s not typical of school science settings. Therefore the degree to which canonically authentic scientific inquiries of the nature that is described in this study can be implemented in school science settings is limited.
42 Figure 1 1. Theoret ical Framework: The relationship between formal and practical nature of science (NOS) understandings as authenticity increases in science research experiences.
43 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Research apprenticeships in science provide a uniquely authentic context for the investigation of the impacts of participation in pr ofessional science practices on a variety of desirable educational outcomes (Sadler et al. 2010). One of these investigated outcomes is the development of increasingly sophistica ted Nature of Science (NOS) ideas among research apprenticeship participants (e.g. Bell et al., 2003; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2007). However, although science educators tend to agree that research apprenticeships can serve as appropriate c ontexts for influencing NOS ideas, their perspectives regarding how to best do so remain quite varied. Part of this variance is due to differing assumptions made by researchers regarding the influence of part icipation by learners in scientific practices on the teaching and learning of NOS. Drawing from theoretical work regarding cognitive apprenticeships (Brown et al., 1989) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), some science authentic science may result in the development of sophisticated NOS ideas among learners (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999). This implicit view of the influence of research apprent iceships on NOS ideas is consistent with notions of science identity formation accompanying involvement in the discourses and practices of professional science (Gee, 1999; Gee, 2001). If students see themselves as involved and active members within the sci ence community, then their ideas of knowledge development within science may be impacted.
44 Others have challenged the merits of such an implicit perspective of the teaching and learning of NOS ideas within research apprenticeships. These science educators suggest that in order to most effectively influence NOS understandings, NOS aspects must be explicitly addressed through designed curriculum intended to provide learners with experiences related to these aspects in addition to opportunities to reflect on t hem (e.g. Akerson et al., 2000; Schwartz et al., 2004). Science educators refer to this approach as the explicit/reflective approach to the teaching and learning of NOS (Lederman, 2007). The majority of research that supports the effectiveness of the expli cit/reflective approach has been conducted in the context of traditional school settings (e.g. Akerson et al., 2000; Akerson & Volrich, 2006, Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). That being the case, the limited studies investigati ng the explicit/reflective approach in the context of research apprenticeships have demonstrated its effectiveness in these settings as well (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al. 2004). The empirical research base cited above regarding the merits of impl icit and explicit/reflective approaches to NOS teaching and learning in the context of research apprenticeships has mixed results for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there exists conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of the implicit approach in r esearch apprenticeships. For examp le, self reported data indicate a positive impact on participants NOS ideas from an implicit approach (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999), whereas d ata from open ended validated questionnaires point towards no implicit relationship between participation in research apprenticeships and the development of
45 NOS ideas (Bell et al. 2003). Secondly, a majority of the empirical investigations of the explicit/ reflective approach have been conducted in school settings with many fewer studies having been conducted in the context of a research apprenticeship program (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). Finally, every study that systematically compares th e merits of the two approaches has been conducted in the context of school science rather than in the authentic context offered by a research apprenticeship (e.g. Bell et al., 2010; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). This literat ure review will systematically examine the empirical research base cited above in greater detail. Figure 2 1 presents a concept map outlining the organization of this chapter The chapter begins with a discussion of research apprenticeships as canonically authentic experiences in science education. This section of the chapter will include an examination of the factors that make research apprenticeships uniquely authentic when compared to formal school science settings in addition to learner perceptions of outcomes associated with participation in such experiences. Next, attention will be turned to one of these reported outcomes, namely the development of sophisticated NOS ideas among research apprenticeship participants. This portion of the chapter will add ress definitions and conceptualizations of NOS along with ways to measure and assess learners NOS ideas. The remainder of the chapter will focus on differing approaches to NOS teaching and learning in a variety of contexts and with multiple types of learn ers. This portion of the chapter is organized under the following three headings: (1) NOS in research apprenticeships, (2) NOS in school science and (3) studies comparing various approaches in school science settings. The second and third
46 headings in this portion, although not directly related to research apprenticeships as an educational context, become important components of the literature review in light of the relatively few studies of the explicit/reflective approach in authentic settings and the abse nce of studies that compare different approaches to NOS teaching and learning in apprenticeship programs. Research Apprenticeships Research apprenticeships are experiences in which learners participate in professional scientific practices under the superv ision of a mentor in authentic contexts. These experiences are varied but they do share the following common traits: an experienced mentor scientist, a novice learner, a professional setting and a valuable and focused research project (Sadler et al., 2010) The mentor is typically a professional scientist (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001) who is a faculty member of a university science department. Alternatively, this mentor may be a graduate student scientist working in a professional science laboratory (e.g. Bleich er, 1996; Burgin et al., 2011). Research apprenticeship programs have been designed for a variety of learners. These learners may be secondary students (e.g. Ritchie & Rigano, 1996), undergraduate students (e.g. Ryder & Leach, 1999), or preservice and/or i nservice teachers (e.g. Schwartz et al., 2004). The professional setting may be in the field or it may be in a working science laboratory. The value and the focus of the research project are due to the collection of scientific purpose (Barab & Hay, 2001). It is through the collection and interpretation of authentic data that the learner in the research apprenticeship participates in the practices of professional science. Drawing from situated learning as a theoretic al framework, research apprenticeships can be understood to be settings in which a learner moves along a
47 trajectory towards full participation in professional scientific practice through legitimate peripheral participation within a working scientific commu nity (Lave & Wenger, 1991). It is this legitimate participation in professional scientific practice that results in classifying research apprenticeships as situations that provide learners with highly authentic experiences in science education. Research Ap prenticeships as Canonically Authentic Contexts Before a full examination of the literature base reporting on the merits of participation in research apprenticeships, it is helpful to return to an examination of what makes these experiences uniquely authen tic when compared to typical scientific inquiries conducted in school settings. When describing the authenticity of school science inquiry, a number of science educators make the argument that involvement in highly authentic science experiences will enable learners to experience cognitive processes, epistemological commitments and discourse practices that more closely resemble those experienced by working professional scientists as they construct scientific understandings (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Duschl & O sborne, 2002; Osborne, 2002; Roth, 1995). Buxton (2006) labels this point of view the canonical perspective of authenticity. It is not hard to see why, from this perspective, a scientific inquiry conducted in a formal school setting would likely be less au thentic than one conducted in the non formal professional science setting offered through a research apprenticeship. A formal setting is defined as one in which student participation is mandatory and traditional assessments (e.g. tests, quizzes, projects e tc.) are the norm. In a non formal setting student participation is voluntary and assessments tend to be more formative and non traditional if present at all. Differing levels of authenticity in formal school science and non formal research apprenticeships may be due to
48 differences in the nature of the mentor, curriculum design and institutional constraints present in formal and non formal settings. Each of these differences will now be discussed in turn. Mentor In formal school settings, a classroom scie nce teacher plays the role of a mentor to his or her students. This can be problematic when science teachers themselves tend to hold nave understandings of NOS aspects (Herron, 1971; Abd El Khalick & based study of 50 inservice teachers revealed that they held an authoritarian perspective of NOS. Using questionnaires and follow up interviews, Abd El Khalick and BouJaoude (1997) demonstrated that most of the twenty inservice Lebanese science teacher participants i n their study thought that the scientific method was the only technique used by scientists to gather data. In non formal research apprenticeship settings, a scientist who is a working member within a scientific community of practice is mentoring the scien ce learner Although some scientists may have less than informed conceptions of NOS, it can be reasonably assumed that large numbers of scientists hold acceptable understandings of consensus NOS aspects (Osbor ne et al., 2003; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008; Won g & Hodson, 2009; Wong & Hodson, 2010). Some have assumed that science teachers (mentors) who hold sophisticated understandings of NOS will be more likely to engage their students in experiences with higher levels of authenticity than will teachers with n ave understandings of the nature of scientific knowledge. Although there is some empirical evidence that supports this assumption (Bencze, Bowen & Alsop, 2006; Kang & Wallace, 2005), o ther science education research ers have conducted studies indicating th at teacher NOS beliefs and
49 teacher practices are not necessarily correlated (Lederman, 1999; Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). Similarly, scientist mentors in the context of research apprenticeships who hold sophisticated understandings of NOS cannot be automatic ally expected to engage their apprentices in forms of inquiry that will necessarily impact their understandings of NOS. There then is not much evidence to indicate that differences in NOS understandings between science teachers and professional scientists would result in any significant differences in mentorship quality. However, a factor that may contribute to the quality of mentorship provided by science teachers in formal school settings is the prior experiences of these teachers as participants in authe ntic science experiences themselves. Teachers who have had experiences in professional science may be more likely to engage their students in scientific inquiries that more closely resemble those of professional science Windschitl (2003) examined the impa ct of six preservice science ended inquiry investigation on their enactment of authentic scientific inquiries in their practicum placements. Reflective writings, interviews & classroom observations revealed th at the preservice teachers who had experiences participating in authentic scientific research either professionally or as undergraduate researchers where those that provided their students with opportunities to participate in authentic levels of scientific practice. Unfortunately, due to their only experiences in undergraduate science laboratories consisting of participation in highly scripted confirmatory activities, large numbers of traditional science teachers have not had opportunities to practice authe ntic science themselves (Trumbull & Kerr, 1993). In contrast to this, mentors in non formal research apprenticeships are typically working scientists who have had vast experiences practicing canonically authentic
50 professional scientific research (Sadler et al., 2010). Even when mentors in research apprenticeships are graduate students working in a professional science lab oratory (Bleicher, 1996), they often have much more experience with canonically authentic science than does the typical school science tea cher. These mentors may therefore be highly qualified to provide canonically authentic experiences to the science learners they are working with. Curriculum design In school science, the formal curriculum drives the instruction that takes place. Scientific inquiry that occurs in these settings is typically guided by designed laboratory activities present in textbooks or other curricular resources. Over the years, science educators have examined the levels of authenticity of the laboratory activities present in these curricula (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Germann et al.,1996; Herron, 1971). Herron (1971) examined the Chemi stry Education Materials Study curriculum, the Physical Science Study Committee physics curriculum, and the Blue Version Biological Science Cu rriculum Study in order to assess the levels of inquiry promoted within them. He found all three curricula to emphasize a form of inquiry that was nearly void of creativity. The majority of the laboratory activities present in these three curricula illustr ated or demonstrated content that the students had previously encountered and did not involve any procedural design on the part of students. Herron classified these one follows the parts of a recipe in a cookbook. Germann et al. (1996) analyzed 90 to tal laboratory activities from nine different biology science curricula all published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They found that only three curricula attempted to en gage the students in pre la boratory activities,
51 that only two laboratory activities asked the students to pose a question, only 16 activities required the students to fo rmulate a hypothesis and only one activity asked students to identify variables. Additi onally, very few of these activities involved students in the design of investigations or the de velopment of tables or charts to present their data. The laboratory activities also emphasized correct performance of laboratory skills and the obtaining of cor rect answers. Finally, very few of the laboratory activities offered opportunities for extension or application of results. Th e authors suggest that typical school science laboratory activities treat students like technicians rather than scientists. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) examined 468 inquiry tasks in nine different upper elementary and middle school science textbooks. They found that only two percent of the inquiry activities required students to select their own variables w hen designing an investigati on and that o nly four percent of the activities involved student development of simple controls for their investigation. It follows then from this and the previously cited studies that in order for science teachers (mentors) in formal school settings to pr omote high levels of inquiry in their classroom, they would have to make significant modifications to existing curricular resources or design scientific inquiry experiences themselves for their students. In contrast, there is not typically a formal curricu lum guiding the learning that takes place in non formal settings such as research apprenticeships. In these experiences, the learner is engaged in participating in a genuine inquiry project that is serving a valuable purpose for his or her lab oratory group (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001) There is little chance that the apprentice is participating in scientific inquiry merely for the purpose of demonstrating agreed upon scientific theory or the trans mittal
52 Institutional constraints In addit ion to teach er beliefs, teacher experiences and the formal curriculum, the institutional constraints within public school settings can also limit the levels of authenticity present Bencze and Hodson (1993) suggest that time, public opinion and the emphasi s on standardized testing all influence the levels of authenticity enacted in formal school settings. Hofstein and Lunetta (2004) discuss limits in resources, inflexible sche duling of laboratory facilities and large class sizes as additional institutional constraints to authenticity. In one report, Hume and Coll (2010) investigated the enactment of a new curriculum in New Zealand designed to promote high levels of authentic practice through scientific inquiry experiences in a classroom in which 11 th grade s tudents create d and conduct ed an independent and original science investigation. The researchers observed that the intended curriculum did not necessarily match the actual curriculum experienced by the students due to a variety of external pressures face d by the teachers to emphasize and deliver certain content standards present on standardized assessments. These institutional constraints may have resulted in a misinformed perspective among students regarding the work of actual scientists. Similarly, scienc e education rese archers from Lebanon, Australia and Taiwan have discussed the negative e ffect that an emphasis on high stakes standardized testing has on the implementation of authentic laboratory experiences in formal school settings (Abd El Khalick et al ., 2004). Additionally, science education researchers in Israel have discussed the difficulty in implementing authentic experiences in school settings due to the long term financ ial commitment and administrative support required (Abd El Khalick et al., 200 4).
53 W hile there may be institutional constraints of a different nature wit hin a research apprenticeship (e.g the limited time of the program, desired levels of data quality, funding requirements, publication pressures) there is not h to the Therefore, the institutional constraints present during non formal research apprenticeship experiences do not hinder authenticity to the same degree as do the constraints present in the scho ols where formal science education takes place. Learner Percept ions of Research Apprenticeship Outcomes Attention is now turned towards the outcomes associated with learner participation in research apprenticeship experiences specifically. The labeling of these outcomes comes from the recent literature review of research apprenticeships by Sadler et al. (2010). As discussed in that literature review, the majority of empirical evidence regarding these outcomes has come in the form of self reported participan t data. As such, all of the outcomes are primarily discussed in terms of learner perceptions of them. The first section deals with perceptions of science identity formation through participation in research apprenticeships. Outcomes of confidence, discours e practices and career aspirations are examined under this heading. The second section is organized around outcomes associated with the development of learner knowledge and skills in regard to science. These outcomes are scientific content knowledge, intel lectual development, skills and NOS ideas. Since the focus of this study is on the development of NOS ideas through participation in research apprenticeships, a thorough discussion of this outcome will be reserved for subsequent sections of this literature review.
54 Science identity formation The development of science identities within formal school settings has been documented as learners participate in project based learning, partner with scientists through on line work and are epistemically involved in t he formulation of research qu estions and procedural decision making more so would learners in more highly authentic contexts s uch as research apprenticeships? Through research apprenticeships, participants perceive increased levels of confidence, participate in the discourse of professional science and report impacts on their science career aspirations. All of these outcomes resu lt in or from the formation of science identities. One of the reported outcomes of research apprenticeship programs is increased confidence to engage in scientific inquiry practices (Sadler et al., 2010). This outcome might be related to science identity formation within research apprenticeship programs. Stake and Mares (2001) utilized a pre/post questionnaire with 330 secondary student participants in a research apprenticeship program. The results of their study indicated no significant changes in studen t confidence, although the students self reported such a change in their attitudes toward their abilities to do science. In a subsequent study, Stake and Mares (2005) utilized similar methods to investigate the influence of participation in research appren confidence in science. They found no immediate positive changes in these outcomes, but did find significant increases through follow up surveys conducted three months afte r the research apprenticeship. The fi to do science continues to be affected following the completion of a research
55 apprenticeship experience. Increased confidence to do science could be related to self identification as a productive contributin g member of a scientific community involved in the production of scientific knowledge. Similar identity changes associated with increased confidence have been seen in undergraduate participants of research apprenticeships. In interviews with 76 undergradua te participants of a summer research apprenticeship, 28% reported that as a result of their experience they were more able to think and work in ways that were similar to those of scientists (Seymour, Hunter, Larsen & Deantoni, 2004). Additionally, four per cent of the students reported positive attitudinal changes in regard to their perceptions of themselves as researchers. A follow up study was conducted in which these same students were interviewed two more times during their undergraduate careers (Hunter, Larsen & Seymour, 2007). The mentors of the students were also interviewed. Large numbers of both mentors and students reported on the professional research apprenticeship s. The authors attribute this shift in identity to increased confidence among learners to participate in scientific research. Participation in the discourse practices of a given culture is understood to be a component of identity formation (Gee, 1999). To become identified within a certain community, a person needs to culturally act like an authentic member of that group. Included in the actions of a community are the forms of communication that are the norm for its members. In science, discourse practices include very specific forms of argumentation including a prioritizing of empirical evidence when making claims, engagement in collaborative discussions with other members within the scientific
56 community and the use of technical vocabulary in addition to o ther factors (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). In summary, when a learner of science begins to communicate like a scientist, he or she begins to form a science identity. reported outco me of participation in research apprenticeships (Sadler et al., 2010). This outcome is most notably observed in research apprenticeship programs designed for secondary learners (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Charney et al., 2007; Richmond & Kurth, 199 9). Some of the empirical research describes the use of scientific discourse in the formulation of arguments based on empirical evidence. In their naturalistic study of 24 middle school students who participated in a two week research apprenticeship, Bara b and Hay (2001) document through transcripts of group discussions the participants engaging in scientific discourse practices. This was primarily observed through group debates. In these debates, students presented explanations, defended their positions w ith examples from the data they had collected, revised their explanations based on other examples given to them by their peers and ultimately further developed their hypotheses as a result. This process of communication that impacted laboratory practices v ery closely mirrors the discourse practices of professional scientists. Similarly, Charney et al. (2007), in a case study of two high school student participants and in terpreted these arguments to explain the linkage between experimental results experience.
57 Other studies describe the influences of using technical scientific vocabulary on the formation of science identities. Bleicher (1996) reports on a case study of one high school student participant of a six week research apprenticeship program who developed professional discourse practices si milar to those of his mentors (three differen t graduate student scientists) during the experience. The language and of the culture of professional practice in the science laboratory in which the student was embedded. As such, the student developed skills in using the tools of professional science through his research apprenticeship experience. Likewise, Richmond & Kurth (1999) discuss t he development of increasingly complex uses of technical language as a scientific tool over the course of high school student participation in a seven week research apprenticeship program through an analysis of student writing and talk. When discussing tec understand the role that this particular kind of communication plays in clarification and & Ku rth, 1999, p. 682). The authors describe the use of scientific discourse as one of the resources that students used as they formed identities within the culture of professional science. Another reported outcome of participation in research apprenticeships is the development of career aspirations related to science (Sadler et al., 2010). This outcome positive science identities may result in an increased desire to continue p articipating in
58 the culture of science beyond the experience of the research apprenticeship. Included in the discussion of career aspirations are decisions made by participants to enroll in graduate degree programs. An examination of this outcome is presen t in studies reporting on the impacts of research apprenticeships designed for secondary students (Abraham, 2002; Burgin et al., 2011; Cooley & Bassett, 1961; Davis, 1999; Roberts & Wassersug, 2008; Stake & Mares, 2001) and for undergraduate students (Hack ett, Croissant & Schneider, 1992; Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). The studies focusing on secondary student participants in research apprenticeships specifically address issues related to career aspirations. Three discuss an increased desire b y students to pursue science related careers, particularly those involving research (Abraham, 2002; Cooley & Bassett, 1961; Davis, 1999). That this increased desire is evidenced by minority students who are underrepresented in science careers is an encoura ging finding (Davis, 1999). Roberts and Wassersug (2008) conducted a retrospective study that revealed a significant correlation between participation in a research apprenticeship as a secondary student and entering and maintaining a career in science. T he same correlation was not evident in students who participated in authentic research for the first time as undergraduate s Such findings speak to a powerful impact of research apprenticeship experiences for secondary students on influencing their career de cisions. In another study, the career aspirations of secondary students are observed to shift away from medical related careers and toward other careers in science (Stake & Mares, 2001). One recent study reports that firm career aspirations (either toward or against science) among secondary student participants of research apprenticeships remain uninfluenced by their experience as
59 self reported in student interviews. However, students with a general level of interest in pursing a science related career repo rt that their experience refined and narrowed their interest (Burgin et al., 2011). Studies examining research apprenticeships designed for undergraduate students report that participants leave with an increased desire to attend graduate school in pursuit of a science related career (Hackett et al., 1992; Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). Like programs for secondary students (Burgin et al., 2011; Stake & Mares, 2001), apprenticeships for undergraduate students also play a role in specifying vague science career aspirations (Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). In summary, research apprenticeship experiences play a direct role in influencing the development of science identities among learner participants. This is evidenced in an increased c onfidence to participate in the practices of professional science including the normal forms of scientific discourse. This self perceived identity formation within science may result in science career aspirations among secondary learners and undergraduate participants in research apprenticeships. Development of knowledge and skills Accompanying the formation of science identities through research apprenticeships is the development of the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in authentic scientifi c practices. Again drawing from the work of Sadler et al. (2010) to identify outcomes of participation in research apprenticeships, the outcomes of scientific content knowledge, intellectual development, skills and NOS are discussed in this section. The de velopment of scientific content knowledge is an often self reported outcome given by participants of research apprenticeships (Abraham, 2002; Brown & Melear,
60 2007; Burgin et al., 2011; Grindstaff & Richmond, 2008; Raphael, Tobias & Greenberg, 1999; Seymour et al., 2004). These participants include representative populations of secondary students, und ergraduate students and teachers that participate in these types of experiences. The Grindstaff and Richmond (2008) article discusses the self perceived role of student collaboration in the social construction of conceptual understanding. In a few of these studies, including a companion piece to the Seymour et al. (2004) study, the researchers utilized follow up interviews with mentor scientists to corroborate th e self reported data (Burgin et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2007). The Burgin et al. (2011) piece is unique in that concept mapping by secondary student participants was also used to corroborate the self reported gains in understanding of scientific content knowledge. In this study, the concept maps generated by learners were observed to increase in complexity and in the number of discipline specific conceptual constructs over the course of a summer research apprenticeship program. Researchers in other studi es have sought to examine the accuracy of conceptual understanding revealed in student interview responses and student presentations given at the end of a research apprenticeship experience (Bleicher, 1996; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996). Ritchie & Rigano (1996) interviewed two secondary student research apprenticeship participants. The researchers specifically asked them questions about scientific content and analyzed their responses for accuracy. They were convinced that these participants developed sophisticate d conceptual understanding of chemistry that that both students were progressively grasping a range of chemical concepts beyond rast to the results of this study, analysis of a
61 a less than ideal conceptual understanding of his topic as a result of his apprenticeship experience (Bleicher, 1996). Very few studies rely on direc t assessments of scientific content knowledge when making claims about resulting conceptual understanding from participation in research apprenticeships (Sadler et al., 2010). In one study that did rely on a direct assessment, researchers utilized open end ed A dvanced Placement biology test questions to examine the conceptual understanding of 30 secondary students participating in an apprenticeship program (Charney et al., 2007). Comparison of responses to the questions given at the beginning and then again at the end of the experience revealed over the course of the program. In addition to conceptual understanding, another related outcome is the intellectual development o f research apprenticeship participants (Sadler et al., 2010). This construct deals with scientific reasoning and critical thinking skills of science learners. Such outcomes are reported for secondary students (Cooley & Bassett, 1961; Hay & Barab, 2001), as well as undergraduate students (Seymour et al., 2004; Hunter et al., 2007). Although much of this research relies on student self reported data (Seymour et al., 2004; Hunter et al., 2007), the work by Cooley & Bassett (1961) utilizes standardized tests of scientific thinking to examine the intellectual development of secondary student participants in an apprenticeship experience. By comparing pre and post test scores, the authors describe significant gains made by students in the use of hypotheses, the int erpretation of data and quantitative reasoning skills.
62 The intellectual development of participants in research apprenticeship programs has been linked to epistemic involvement (Hay & Barab, 2001; Ryder & Leach, 1999). In a comparison study of an apprentic for secondary learners, Hay and Barab (2001) document no critical or creative thinking among participants in the apprenticeship experience. They attribute this to the fact that students in the apprentices hip were assigned their project and were uninvolved in its design due to the limited timeframe (two weeks) of the experience. Similarly, Ryder and Leach (1999) report that undergraduate students who were involved in the formation of research questions show ed gains in scientific reasoning, whereas students who were merely collecting data through the enactment of previously established procedures did not. Additionally, many participants of research apprenticeships perceive that through their experiences they have gained skills that enable them to participate meaningfully in authentic scientific research (Sadler et al., 2010). These skills include an ability to be involved in the research process through the formulation of research questions and the designing of procedures (Seymour et al., 2004), communication skills (Hunter et al., 2007, Seymour et al., 2004) and technical skills such as the manipulation of laboratory equipment (Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Seymour et al., 2004). Finally, the development of sophis ticated understandings of NOS is an outcome from participation in research apprenticeships that is reported in the empirical literature (Sadler et al., 2010). Since the focus of this present study is on the development of NOS ideas in these contexts, the r emainder of the literature review will be devoted to exploring this outcome.
63 In summary, participation in research apprenticeships results in many participant perceived outcomes. These outcomes include the formation of science identities and the developme nt of understandings and skills. The formation of science identities includes outcomes of confidence and discourse practices which result in science career aspirations. The development of understandings and skills includes the outcomes of scientific conten t knowledge, intellectual development and skills (participation in the research process, communication and technical skills) in addition to the development of NOS ideas. This last outcome will now be explored in depth. Nature of Science (NOS) As was discu ssed in Chapter 1 1987, p. 721). This is the definition that is used in this study. Before an examination of the various approach es to NOS teaching and learning in different educational contexts, it is helpful to briefly reexamine a conceptualization of various aspects of NOS in addition to methods of assessing NOS and strategies for the teaching and learning of NOS NOS Conceptua lized In Chapter 1 descriptions were made of various efforts to compile consensus lists of component NOS aspects by science educators (Lederman et al., 2002; Osborne et al., 2003; Sandoval, 2005; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008). Although some have questioned t he existence of consensus aspects (Alters, 1997), most science educators would agree that at least at a fundamental level, common understandings of NOS aspects that are philosophically relevant to K 12 science education can be expected to
64 be agreed upon by all stake holders in science education (Lederman, 2007; Smith et al., 1997). Lederman et al. (2002) identify seven of these consensus NOS aspects in their description of the development of an open ended questionnaire used to assess them. These aspects ar e (1) the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, (2) the distinctions and relationships among scientific theories and laws, (3) the creative and imaginative nature of scientific knowledge, (4) the theory laden nature of scientific knowledge, (5) the soc ial and cultural embeddedness of scientific knowledge, (6) the myth of the scientific method and (7) the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. Sandoval (2005) has condensed these seven consensus aspects into the following four NOS constructs: (1) the c onstruction of scientific knowledge, (2) the diversity of scientific methods, (3) the different forms of scientific knowledge (including hypotheses, models, theories and to organize the discussion of scientific epistemologies in the reform document Taking Science to School (NRC, 2007). In this light, discussions of gains in NOS (2005) f our aspects of NOS. When authors report gains in understandings of NOS aspects in terms of other consensus lists, efforts will be made to interpret these It is also helpful to remember that some science educators believe that NOS understandings are highly situational and that science learners may hold multiple NOS conceptions simultaneously (Hogan, 2000; Sandoval, 2005). Hogan (2000) argues that students hold proximal NOS understandings relat ed to their own experiences in the
65 generation of scientific knowledge and distal NOS understandings of the generation of scientific knowledge by professional scientists. Sandoval (2005) labels these as practical and formal epistemologies of science respect ively. The theoretical perspective guiding this current of science overlap in the context of canonically authentic science experiences and that this overlapping nature has direct conseque nces for the teaching, learning and assessment of NOS ideas. Measurement/Assessment of NOS Understandings of how to best assess learner conceptions of NOS have developed over time. Some of the earliest tools used to measure NOS ideas relied on quantitative scoring of multiple choice questions and responses on Likert scale surveys (Cooley & Klopfer, 1963; Rubba & Anderson, 1978). In more recent years, science educators have questioned the merits of relying on the forced responses obtained through such tradit ional instruments to assess NOS ideas (Lederman et al., 1998). As such, open ended questionnaires with follow up interview protocols have been developed in order to allow students to provide their own NOS perspectives and give elaborate descriptions of tho se ideas. The most widely used open ended NOS questionnaire among science educators is the Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) (Lederman et al., 2002). Recently, science education researchers like Sandoval (2005) have called for a more ethn ographic approach to the investigation NOS ideas based on observations of actual student practice in authentic science contexts.
66 Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning There are two main approaches to NOS teaching and learning that are described by scienc e educators. The first of these is the implicit approach. According to this perspective, the NOS ideas of science learners will be impacted by implicit messages carried through participation in science practice. The second approach is the explicit/reflecti ve approach. Advocates for the explicit/reflective approach argue that learners of science should explicitly encounter target NOS aspects and have opportunities to reflect on how these NOS aspects relate to their own involvement in the construction of scie ntific knowledge. The authors of one study give a clear definition of aspects of NOS through discussion, guided reflection, and specific questioning in the context 614). For the purposes of this literature review, the explicit/reflective approach will be discussed as the explicit approach. As will be seen in the empirical literature, t his is due reflective opportunities, and some implicit approaches actually do involve some form of reflection even if NOS aspects are not explicitly addressed. The approa ches to NOS teaching and learning reported in the literature base are discussed in three sections. The first is a treatment of the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of research apprenticeships. The majority of the studies in this section apply an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning. The second section examines NOS teaching and learning in traditional school settings. In these contexts, an explicit approach is the predominant approach. This section is included in order to give a thorough treatment of the merits of explicit approaches as this approach has been
67 seldom used in research apprenticeship settings. Finally, a third section discusses studies that compare various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS ideas. All of the stud ies examined in this section are conducted in the context of formal school science. They are included in this literature review because no similar studies have been conducted in the context of research apprenticeship programs. NOS in Research Apprenticesh ips Twenty one studies that investigated participation in research apprenticeships as a context for influencing learner NOS ideas are discussed in this section. Table 2 1 summarizes these studies on the basis of the approach to NOS teaching and learning th at was employed, the methods used to assess participant NOS ideas, and the results studies took an explicit approach to teaching and learning and only six of them had a reflective component to their approach. The studies are presented in the table in the order that they are discussed in this section. Implicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in Research Apprenticeships Given the predominance of the implicit approa ch to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of research apprenticeships, a discussion of studies reporting on the merits of this approach is a logical place to begin this section. Studies that investigated the impact of participation in the pract of the nature of scientific knowledge construction without systematically and explicitly addressing various NOS aspects were classified as utilizing an implicit approach. Eighte en of the studies described in T able 2 1 fall under the implicit approach label. These studies investigate the assumption made by many science educators and stakeholders in science education that students will develop sophisticated
68 (Lederman, 2007). First, studies reporting gains in learner NOS ideas as a result of an implicit approach are described. Next, studies that describe limited or no gains in learner NOS ideas are examined. The studies in these two sections are organized bas ed on the academic level of the reported population. Gains from implicit approaches in research apprenticeships Secondary students. A number of studies report and discuss gains in NOS ideas held by secondary learners as a result of their participation in research apprenticeships as a result of an implicit approach (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Burgin et al., 2011; Cooley & Bassett, 1961; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996). Cooley and Bassett (1961) investigated the influence of a summer science and mathematics institute for gifted secondary learners on a number of desirable outcomes including NOS ideas. The participants in this study were fifty five high school juniors. The research apprenticeship experience consisted of two weeks of inte nse study of advanced topics in science and math followed by eight weeks of authentic research with professional scientists in their laboratories. The authors utilized a pre post design to make claims about changes in student understanding of NOS over the course of the program. Student participants took a standardized instrumen t, the Facts About Science Test, at the beginning and the end of the program. This assessment consisted of a number of multiple choice questions. One of these questions is presented b elow. 34. Of the following, which is the most important characteristic of science? A. As many facts as possible are acquired and classified. B. Statements are not made unless absolutely true. C. Its own mistakes are discovered and corrected. (Cooley & Bassett, 1961, p. 212). The desired response to this item was choice (C).
69 Comparisons of the average pre and post experience scores on this instrument were made and a statistically significant p va lue resulted from t tests of learner change. scientific research, both the menial task 1961, p. 211). In other words, students were given the opportunity through the program to participate in science research and the authors expected that such an experience would influence their understanding s of science as an enterprise and the methods chosen for this study revealed that it did so. The Cooley and Bassett (1961) study provides an illustrative example for discussing some of the inherent problems with traditional standardized NOS assessments. I n this study, student responses to multiple choice questions were the only data analyzed to make claims about changes in NOS understandings. One of the main critiques of assessments like the one used in this study is that they do not allow for freedom of e xpression, but rather force students into responses which are then analyzed according to the perspectives of the authors of the assessments (Lederman et al., 1998). Looking at the example question provided above, it is apparent that at the time of this stu dy, a sophisticated understanding of NOS was believed by science educators to involve the conception that knowledge formation in science was a process nature. In fac
70 is no longer understood to be a sophisticated understanding of NOS, but rather a quite nave one (Lederman, 2007). Given that students were not provided with any opportunity to express a perspective of science other than one informed by the guided the authors of the standardized multiple choice test used in this study, it is hard to make any definitive claims about the impacts of participation in this research apprenticeship program on participant conceptions of NOS ideas through an implicit approach. Other studies use student self reported data to make claims about the impacts of research apprenticeship participation on learner NOS conceptions resulting from an implicit approach. For example, Bleicher (1996) conducted a case study of a sing le high school student participant in a research apprenticeship in order to examine the social program. The context for this study was a six week summer research app renticeship experience designed for 11 th grade students. Students worked as apprentices to graduate student mentors who were directly supervised by a science faculty member of a research university. Research centered on material science topics related to t he development of electronic devices. In addition to the laboratory research component of the experience, students participated in seminars, attended meetings and kept personal them [research apprenticeship participants] with methods of scientific presentation and findings at the end of the research apprenticeship. Although students participated i n seminars and reflected in journals, the authors do not clearly articulate the instructional
71 objectives guiding these reflective activities or the specific topics that were addressed. As such, this approach has been classified as implicit rather than expl icit. Another reason for this is that the author does not attribute gains in NOS ideas to the topics presented in these seminars but rather to the impact of participation in a working laboratory research group. Primary sources of data from this observation al study were field notes, video recordings, interviews and participant journal entries. The field notes Through observation of laboratory group meetings, Bleicher (1996) do cuments that the group members who were mentoring the secondary student in this case study scientific research (p.1123). Bleicher (1996) continues to say that through recorde d conversation s in these laboratory group meetings in regard to how to interpret graphical another group of researchers might come up with a different interpretation of the same sophisticated understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. What is most intriguing about this study is th at udent participant acquired the sophisticated NOS ideas of his mentors through participation in laboratory group meetings that were part of the culture of the lab in which he was placed.
72 Ritchie and Rigano (1996) similarly document the impact of participat ion in implicit approach. Their study is a case study of two secondary students (11 th and 12 th grade) who were participating in an intense research apprenticeship program in A ustralia. This program lasted over six months during which the participants were released from school one afternoon per week to work on research in the laboratory of a mentor scientist. The two students in this program were investigating research in the fi eld of chemical engineering. The primary sources of data for this observational study were field notes and subsequent participant interviews. The authors describe gains in NOS ideas that accompanied participation in this research apprenticeship. The NOS g ains reported in this study relate to understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. Specifically, the students were observed and reported in interviews that they onsibility for their own actions by seeking the warrants how students came to understand the empirical nature of scientific knowledge. The student participants in t science laboratory activities in order to present correct answers to their instructor. In contrast to this, these students came to understand the persistence of professional scientists as they ac counted for and faithfully reported unexpected results. This notion is related to understandings of how scientific knowledge varies in certainty. The authors uncertainty a
73 ideas are linked to their increasing ownership over the project that occurred during the experience. In another study demonstrating the merits of the implicit approach in these co ntexts, Richmond and Kurth (1999) describe the development of the views of scientific practice and culture held by seven 11 th and 12 th grade students over the course of their participation in an apprenticeship program The program under investigation was a seven week residential summer apprenticeship. The authors state regularly reflect ed through journal writing activities and discussions on their understandings of sc ience, scientists, prior science experiences and science careers. However, the exact nature and frequency of the reflective prompts is not described in this study. Although these prompts may have provided explicit NOS instruction, without further informati on, this experience is classified as using an implicit approach with a reflective component. The participants in this study were interviewed three times during the apprenticeship. Primary sources of data include these interviews in addition to student jour nal entries. The authors report that the student participants demonstrated gains in understanding of four aspects of the culture and practice of science. These were technical language, collaboration, uncertainty and inquiry. The aspects of collaboration a nd uncertainty are relevant to understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. Prior to their experience, these student participants held the perspective that scientists work in isolation on the ir
74 research projects. The actual collaborative nature of their individual laboratory placements modified this conception. In the words of one participant: own little lab. Nobo ond & Kurth, 1999, p. 684) The students also developed understandings of the uncertainty that is inherent to scientific knowledge. In their school science experiences, the students were familiar with following given procedures to achieve definite results that were often known ahead of time. One student spoke of the doubt that accompanied this uncertainty: ichmond & Kurth, 1999, p. 686) Although the authors use quotes like that above to make an overall claim about the gains in participant understandings of the uncertainty of scientific knowledge, they also acknowledge that this understanding was not complete. Some of the participants still held on to the belief that uncertain and unexpected results were the products of mistakes on the part of the researcher. The authors of this study attribute gains in unde rstandings of these NOS ideas primarily to the actions and interactions of these students in various communities of cultural practice (Richmond & Kurth, 1999) These students came to develop sophisticated understandings of the epistemologies of scientific knowledge through legitimate membership within their laboratory groups according to the authors of this report. That being said, the authors do discuss to a more limited degree the role that the aspects of the program outside of the laboratory played in in fluencing these
75 understandings. They mention how activities such as watching a movie or listening to a guest speaker prompted reflective discussions that influenced the ways in which the participants were writing and talking about the practices of science in their journals and interviews. In summary, student understandings of NOS were influenced through both implicit approaches and through reflective opportunities though discussions and journaling. Other studies have investigated the impacts of an implicit approach with an added reflective component. Barab and Hay (2001) investigated the impact of an apprenticeship program designed for middle school students. The experience under examination was a two week apprenticeship in which middle school students and middle school science teachers worked with research scientists at a university on scientific research projects covering a wide range of science topics. Through the experience, each group also developed and gave a presentation of the results of their resear ch. Reflection was also a major component of this experience. In fact, Barab and emphasizing the importance of both reflection in action and reflection on action during research apprenticeship experiences. Students in this experience kept an electronic notebook, in which they held online discussions with mentor scientists and other students in the pro gram, received background information from scientists, were informed of the schedule of the program and recorded their data and reflections from their laboratory work. The reflective journal did not provide for explicit examination of NOS topics.
76 Twenty f our middle school students served as the population for this study. Part of the uniqueness of this study is the varying socioeconomic backgrounds and academic levels of these participants (Barab & Hay, 2001) This is because most apprenticeship programs ar e designed for gifted and highly motivated science students (Sadler et al., 2010). These students were working in groups of four with one middle school teacher and one mentor scientist. Sources of data included interviews, field notes, videotapes of learne r participation and electronic journal entries. The authors of this study truly believe that participation in the practices of professional science influenced understandings of the construction of knowledge within [the research apprenticeship program] was that there was no separation between doing science and learning science, both occurred (Barab & Hay, 2001, p. 84). As a result of p racticing science, participants held discussions with their mentors about the construction of scientific knowledge. The authors point out that these conversations were not planned lectures by mentors, but rather were discussions initiated by student partic ipants and as such were a direct result of doing science. The conversations involved discussions of unexpected results in science amongst other topics. Additionally, student participants held debates with each other about the meaning of their results. The se types of discussions, present in all of the groups participating in [the research apprenticeship program], suggest that the participants (to some extent) had opportunities to participate in the social negotiation of meaning, a practice that is fundament al to doing sc ience. (Barab & Hay, 2001, p. 89) The authors continue to say that through participation in the social negotiation of
77 The students came to understand that science is very complex, that unexpected results are the norm and that the meaning of results is determined through social discussions among scientists. One recent study adds to the discussion of the impacts of partic ipation in research apprenticeships relying on implicit approaches in that it attempts to make links between aspects of the experience that are directly related to gains in NOS understandings (Burgin et al., 2011). In this interview based study, eighteen 1 1 th and 12 th grade students participated in a seven week summer residential research apprenticeship program at a large university. The study revealed that some of the participants exhibited gains in their understandings of the construction of scientific kn owledge and that their project and the degree of collaboration that they experienced in their laboratory placement might have been positively linked to gains in NOS un derstandings. Epistemic involvement (the degree to which students took part in the development of their project) was not linked to the development of sophisticated NOS ideas. There is then some empirical evidence that secondary student participation in re search apprenticeship experiences utilizing an implicit approach results in gains in understandings of NOS (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Burgin et al., 2011; Cooley & Bassett, 1961; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996). One study that repo rts gains in understandings of NOS for secondary students utilizes an outdated assessment instrument that measures conceptions of NOS that are no longer agreed upon by the science education community (Cooley & Bassett, 1961). The remaining studies utilize observations and interviews to allow students to express their own
78 perspectives in regard to their NOS ideas. However, none of them use a validated instrument such as the views of the nature of science questionnaire (Lederman et al., 2002) to specifically target student ideas of certain NOS aspects. Therefore the findings of these studies are limited to NOS aspects that are self reported by students or specifically observed in their laboratory practice. Undergraduate students. A handful of studies report o n the positive impact of undergraduate involvement in authentic scientific research experiences through apprenticeship opportunities utilizing implicit approaches (Ryder & Leach, 1999; Sabatini, 1997). Sabatini (1997) reports on the impact of an undergradu ate research apprenticeship experience where students work on issues related to ground water remediation. A focus students who were participating in the apprenticeship program in order to allow them to self report the educational value of the experience. A few of the self reported advantages and benefits of the experience are relevant to this discussion of the problem solving the (Sabatini, 1997, p. 3). Based on these statements, the undergraduate students believed that their understandings of the forms of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scien tific methods and the construction of scientific knowledge had all been impacted as a result of their involvement in an authentic research apprenticeship.
79 Ryder and Leach (1999) similarly explored undergraduate student conceptions of images of science gene rated through participation in a one year research apprenticeship that utilized an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning. Eleven undergraduate students participated in the study. The students worked on open ended scientific research projects in a variety of science disciplines under the supervision of mentor scientists. Primary sources of data were interviews with both the students and their mentors. Students were interviewed both at the beginning and the end of their experience. Questions asked of scientific community? In analyzing the responses to these questions, the authors identify one student whose nave view of NOS limited the influence of her project on her understandings of that she was unable to cope with the epistemic involvement required of her as the project progressed. Of the other ten students, eight of them experienced a level of epistemic involvement that the authors believe promoted sophisti cated NOS ideas. As developed his view that more than one interpretation can legitimately be applied to a oped the ideas of her project work [was] a major influence on her images of sc ience; particularly the
80 Leach, 1999, p. 954). These students then exhibited gains in understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. In contrast, the findings of one recent study on apprenticeship experiences for secondary lea rners (Burgin et al., 2011) do not illustrate the same positive relationship between epistemic involvement and gains in NOS ideas from an imp licit approach Although the authors acknowledge that some of these gains may have been the result of explicit messages through conversations with mentors, specific readings and subsequent reflections on them, they continue to say that for two students in particular, attributed this development to their experiences of analyzing data on their own, rather than to any explicit discussions about the practices of professional sc Leach, 1999, p. 955). For the other participants, since the students initially prompted the discussions during their participation in science practice, the gains reported in this study are here classified as resulting from an implicit ap proach Teachers. A few empirical studies report on the positive impact resulting from an implicit approach in the context of research apprenticeships for teacher populations (Varelas, House & Wenzel, 2005; Yen & Huang, 1998). Yen and Huang (1998) investi gated the impact of an open ended research experience on preservice teacher NOS ideas. Ten preservice teachers participated in this study as they worked in groups of about three to research the physiology of a tree frog in an authentic context over a perio d of sixth months. Primary sources of data included open ended questionnaires and interviews at the beginning and the end of the experience. Preservice teacher
81 scientif ic knowledge with the process of deriving it and concluded that the research is as of the experience the same teachers realized that in reality scientific research anded more time and effort than they expected to repeat the experimental trials The authors describe how unexpected results, experimental failures and blind alleys (Roth, 1994) resulted in some of these changes in NOS ideas. The preservice teacher participants then developed a more sophisticated understanding of the diversity of scientific methods. Varelas et al. (2005) also investigate d the impact of an implicit approach in the context of authentic science experiences on preservice In this study, three preservice teachers participated in a summer research apprenticeship in a Each of the three teachers worked on an independent research project of their choosing in the same laboratory environment. The primary sources of data for this study were a series of four interviews conducted with each of the participants. Three of the i nterviews t ook place during the experience and one of them took place a year after completion of the apprenticeship. The authors summarize the results of the experience in the following d complexity of formed by these teachers (Varelas et al., 2005, p. 500). In this sense, the teachers exhibited gains in understandings of the diversity of scientific methods. The teachers
82 also came to understand the interplay between theory and data. Here, the teachers were seen to show gains in understandings of the different forms of scientific knowledge. Finally, the teachers developed an understanding that science is conducted with developed sophisticated understandings of the construction of scientific kn owledge. Limited or no gains from an implicit approach in research apprenticeships Not all studies investigating implicit approaches in the context of research apprenticeships document gains in understandings of NOS ideas. Some studies report limited or n o NOS gains resulting from an implicit approach. There are examples of these studies for secondary students (e.g. Bell et al., 2003) and undergraduate students (e.g. Hunter et al., 2007). Secondary students. In a companion piece to the Barab and Hay (200 1) study, middle school student participants of a research apprenticeship are seen to exhibit gains in understandings of the different forms in scientific knowledge but not in the diversity of scientific methods used to construct that knowledge (Hay & Bara b, 2001). The setting and the participants of this study are identical to those of the Barab and Hay (2001) study that has already been described. Through the use of an online open ended test before and after participation in the research apprenticeship, i t was demonstrated that these middle school student participants had developed a more sophisticated understanding of the scientific method. That is, they understood to a greater degree the different forms of scientific knowledge including hypotheses. Howev er, interview and field note data revealed that their views of the scientific method restricted their understandings of the diversity of scientific methods. These students experienced an
83 accelerated apprenticeship experience over a short two week time peri od. As such, both the research question and the procedures used to collect data were given to these students. Students were expected to therefore follow the steps of the scientific method ibility that students experienced applying all of the steps of the scientific method, it may have had the undesirable effect of preventing students from applying their own problem frames and appreciating how one adapts the scientific method to varying cond 2001, p. 310). Students therefore did not develop an appreciation the adaptability of the scientific method or the possibilities of other methods used to generate scientific knowledge. Similarly to Ryder and Leach (1999), the authors here are linking NOS gains to epistemic involvement in the research process. In another study, Bell and colleagues (2003) investigated the impact of an implicit approach on the NOS ideas held by secondary student participants of an apprenticeship program. Using an open ended questionnaire specifically addressing various NOS aspects (VNOS both prior to and following seconda ry student participation in an eight week summer authentic research experience conceptions remained unchanged oriented science apprenticeship program, none of the 10 participants were found to have adequate understandings of [a 494). This is especially interesting considering that the mentors of the ten participants in this study believed that their students had gained more sophisticated NOS understandings as a result o f their participation in the program. In th e study, it was
84 observed that one student showed some positive changes related to her understandings of the creativity involved in the construction of scientific knowledge and the diversity of methods used in scie nce. The authors attribute these gain s specifically to the epistemic involvement required of the student as she was forced to confront the role that theory played in her research in addition to the amount of reflection that she engaged in with her mentor. Again this link between epistemic involvement and gains in NOS ideas has been observed in other studies (Hay & Barab, 2001; Ryder & Leach, 1999). In this case t h e learning is not linked to any factors of participation in a research apprenticeship relying o n an implicit approach but rather to explicit approaches However, the specifics of these explicit approaches are not clearly elaborated by the authors. The authors conclude by arguing for making NOS instruction explicit in research apprenticeships through the provision of reflective opportunities for participants. Buck (2003) also demonstrated a limited impact of an implicit approach in an apprenticeship experience on secondary student conceptions of NOS. In the experience under investigation, 74 high school students and 50 high school science teachers participated in a three week authentic research experience in either geoscience or biological sciences. Students completed responses to a quantitative instrument called the Be liefs about Science and School Science Questionnaire measuring their NOS conceptions both before and after the experience. This instrument measures student aligned to curre nt sophisticated understandings that scientific knowledge varies in certainty and is tentative. No statistically significant differences in pre and post scores
85 were noted for either the students or the teachers (at the p=0.05 level). The results indicate t hat the implicit approach in the experience did not impact participant understandings that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. In a recent study, a unique perspective on the impact of implicit approaches in research apprenticeships is presented (Van Eijck, Hsu, & Roth, 2009). Drawing from the student practices in authentic science were Thirteen 11 th grade Canadian students participated in the study. The context of the investigation was an internship experience where students apprenticed in a working laboratory on a project related to the quality of drinking water. The laboratory group of which the thirteen students were a part was a very large group consisting of among others a chief scientist, three research scientists, five postdoctoral fellows, thirteen technicians and fifteen graduate student s. The high school students volunteered for the apprenticeship and worked in teams of three or four students in the laboratory over a period of two months under the mentorship of one of the technicians. Semi structured interviews with the participants foll owing the experience were the chief source of data laboratory as evidenced through video recordings of laboratory work and group meetings in addition researcher field no tes of observations. The authors report that some students held sophisticated understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty at e less informed. It is
86 that was determined by the use of particular actions and tools and a particular division 09, p. 624). Therefore, participation in scientific practice through an implicit approach does impact student NOS ideas but it is highly variable and dependent on many factors. According to this point of view, participation in authentic scientific practice does not guarantee a positive impact on a problematic nature of impacting and assessing NOS ideas. They argue that since these images of science are coproduced translat ions, they are not stable and are not directly related to either implicit or explicit approaches. Issue is taken with studies that are ideas (e.g. Bell et al., 2003). In a rec ent study, Aydeniz, Baksa and Skinner (2010) investigate d the impact of participation in a research apprenticeship relying on an implicit approach on secondary student understandings of the nature of science and inquiry. The participants in this study were seventeen high school juniors and seniors who were highly gifted in math and science. The learners participated in a number of research projects in the laboratories of a professional scientist on a university campus that were conducted over an extended pe riod of time lasting for at least an entire semester. Most of the students were not involved in the design of a research question, but rather were brought into an on going research project under investigation in their laboratory placement. Explicit NOS ins truction was not a component of this program. The primary source of data for making claims regarding participant NOS ideas was an open ended survey. The NOS
87 open ended survey used in this study had items that specifically addressed all four of 2005) NOS themes. Results indicated that very few students were able to distinguish between data and evidence, most believed in the singularity of the scientific method, most had nave understandings of how scientists deal with unexpected findings and most did not fully understand the role of theory in science. That being said, most of the students did have sophisticated understandings of the social nature of scientific knowledge generation and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. In regard to the new technologies can make new evidence available which could lead to modifications in old theory, and the existing theories can be modified based on new interpretati (Aydeniz et al., 2010, p. 11). In summary, at the end of this experience, student participants held a mixture of nave and sophisticated understandings of NOS ideas. believe that engagement in scientific inquiry in authentic contexts alone is not sufficient for novice scientists such as the ones studied in this study to develop adequate ). The authors argue for an explicit approach to NOS instruction in the context of apprenticeship experiences. In a companion piece to the Van Eijck et al. (2009) study, participant discourse about science practice is examined both during and following an authentic internship experience (Hsu, Van Eijck & Roth, 2010). In this study, Hsu and colleagues set out not to investigate student understandings of NOS, but rather student representations of the nature of scientific practice in an authentic context The participants and laboratory
88 setting of this study are identical to those of the Van Eijck et al. (2009) study. The data sources included observations, field notes, and video recordings of both the practice of science within the internship setting and the the researchers recorded the initial presentations given by the laboratory technicians to these students. It is the se video recordings that served as the primary source of data for this investigation. The author s first analyzed the student presentations and compared them with the presentations given by their mentor technicians at the beginning of the internships. Then they compared these representations of scientific practice wit h the representations of scientifi c practice as recorded during actual laboratory work in the internship. A c omparison of the technician and student presentations revealed that the technicians represented science practice as taking place within a community much more regularly than did the students in their presentations (Hsu et al., 2010) The students only rarely emphasized the role of community in scientific practice in their final presentations. Additionally, in their presentations the technicians emphasized issues of division of labo r whereas the students did not In other words, s tudents did not adequately represent the collaborative nature of scientific practice in their final presentations. This collaborative nature of scientific practice is included within ological theme that scientific knowledge is constructed. Additionally, when examining the experiences of these students within the internship itself, the video data indicated that these h igh school students had encountered issues of both col laboration and division of labo r in conversations held during their experiences. These results seem to be contradictory. The students truly experienced
89 col laboration and division of labo r within their authentic experiences, but the same students failed to reflect on thes e aspects of scientific practice during their final presentations. The authors use a contextual argument to explain this result. They argue that the process of giving a presentation is quite similar to activities encountered in school situations. Perhaps t hese students were situating their presentations in the context of school s ettings rather than the context of authentic science experiences. Students may have been giving their presentations based on expectations they had for what was valued by the audienc e. They may have felt the need to emphasize their individual contributions to their research project over the actual collaboration that the y experienced during the internship. The authors conclude their study with a discussion centered on the notion that s tudent participation in authentic research experiences alone may not be enough to influence the way that students represent science in practice. They offer three suggestions that may help make the invisible qualities of science practice (i.e. col laboration and division of labo r) visible in student representations of science. They suggest that students should be presented with opportunities to reflect on their experiences during the experience in addition to after it is completed, that scientists and educato rs themselves should collabor ate to design similar experiences and that students should be provided ownership over the project itself. Undergraduate students. Similarly, some studies show a limited impact of participation in apprenticeships utilizing an i mplicit approach on undergraduate conceptions of NOS. In a companion report to the Ryder and Leach (1999) study, it was revealed through interv iews that undergraduate student understandings of how
90 scientists work collaboratively as a community were not con sistently sophisticated (Ryder et al., 1999). The participants and setting of this study were identical to the previously described study by Ryder and Leach (1999). The authors systematically compared student interview responses at th e beginning and the en d of the experience. Whereas the Ryder and Leach (1999) study presents a generally optimistic view of the gains in NOS ideas among these participants, the analysis here paints a slightly different picture. First, it revealed that the students in general he ld some nave conceptions of NOS that were unaltered as a result of the apprenticeship experience. indicating that knowledge claims could be proved absolutely. Of these statements, the 212). This statement speaks to a nave understanding held by the participants of the influence of social factors, either on the evaluation of knowledge claims or the direction of scientific enquiry, was unaltered and nave perspective on the construction of scie ntific knowledge. At the same time however, the authors acknowledge two positive changes in participant understandings of NOS. These are that the students came to understand the s of the 1999, p. 214). These are both positive changes in understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge. The authors conclude that these changes were the r esult of
91 these projects involved forcing the students to relate data collected to any knowledge claims that were made. The authors also say that these gains were due t o an implicit involved working closely with professional scientists and research students had learned a great deal about the world of science, even though such issues were ra rely discussed The results of another study likewise indicated that there were limited gains in NOS understandings held by undergraduate students resulting from an implicit approach in the context of a research ap prenticeship (Hunter et al., 2007). The participants and the context of this study have previously been described in this literature review, so these aspects will not be reexamined here. The study was an interview based study that involved both the undergr aduate participants and their mentors. The results indicated that the students made some limited gains in understanding of the variability of the certainty of scientific knowledge but that these gains were not extensive. This is illustrated in the followin g quote: Although most students discussed both learning about how science research is done and their related experience of gains in applying their critical thinking and problem solving skills to research, fewer students developed a more complex epistemolog ical understanding of the open to revision (Hunter et al., 2007, p. 47). In summary, many empirical studies have demonstrated a limited impact of participation in apprenticeship experiences utilizing implicit approaches on participant conceptions of NOS. These studies are powerful in that many use a more systematic way of measuring participant NOS ideas than do some of the studies that report NOS gains from implicit approaches. F or example some of these studies use validated
92 questionnaires (e.g. Bell et al., 2003; Buck, 2003; Aydeniz, 2010) and systematic comparisons of multiple interviews (e.g. Hunter et al., 2007) in order to investigate questions specifically related to NOS as a target outcome. In contrast to this, studies of the implicit approach that demonstrate positive changes seem to report gains in NOS understandings that seem to rest more heavily upon student self reported data and subsequent researcher interpretation. E xplicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in Research Apprenticeships Only a handful of studies investigate an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning in the context of research apprenticeships or other similar non formal settings (Charney et al., 2007; Liu & Lederman, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2004). In these studies, learners, through instructional components of the experience itself, explicitly encounter target NOS aspects and have explicit opportunities for reflection. Two of these studies doc ument gains associated with an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning whereas one does not. Gains from explicit approaches in research apprenticeships Secondary students. Charney and colleagues (2007) utilized a NOS open ended questionnaire as a p re and post assessment instrument with 30 high school participants in a four week summer research apprenticeship. Results of this study indicated that of the tentativ e nat ure of scientific knowledge or as Sandoval (2005) describes it, an understanding of the variability in the certainty of scientific knowledge In the study, the thinking that 198). This transformation of thinking was attributed to the explicit way s in which the
93 mentor scientist modeled his thought processes during the experience and the reflective nature o f questions that were asked of the students by this mentor during seminars. Student participants then wrote responses to these questions in daily journaling activities. It is this focus on the explicit influences of the seminar and the reflective journal a s the sources for changes in participant NOS ideas that lead the authors to claim that any gains in understanding were the result of an explicit rather than an summer experie some aspects of scientific knowledge constituted an explicit messaging and opportunity Teachers. Another study investigated the impact of an explicit and r eflective approach to NOS learning on preservice teacher participants of an apprenticeship experience (Schwartz et al. 2004). Participants in this study were enrolled in an internship course that had the following three componen ts: a research setting, reflective journals and seminars. In the research component of the course, research scientists in authentic laboratory environments apprenticed preservice teachers as they worked on a scientific research project. These experiences w ere classified by the author as being preservice teachers made personal decisions that contributed to the design of their research study or as b involvement fell somewhere between these extremes. Of the thirteen participants, eight experienced low inquiry, four experienced moderate inquiry and one experienced high inquiry. Therefore, the majority of the part icipants did not experience the high levels of
94 epistemic involvement that Ryder and Leach (1999) link to gains in NOS understandings as a result of apprenticeship experiences utilizing an implicit approach. The journal component of the internship course co ntained a section for data recording and an additional section for reflection. The reflection was prompted by questions that were given to the participants in order to help them make connections between their research experiences and specific NOS aspects. The following are two examples of seen in your laboratory situation different than the discussions about scientific inquiry and the NOS in the summer course? How is it (Schwartz et al., 2004, p. 639). The seminars in the internship course provided a place for whole group discussions of the resear ch settings, journal prompts and any other relevant issues. The instructor merely used the seminars to facilitate discussions. The seminars were not used to explicitly introduce the preservice teachers to NOS aspects as this had been done in a course that these participants were enrolled in during the previous semester. The results of the study indicated that eleven of thirteen participants showed gains in NOS understandings based on pre and post responses to an open ended questionnaire (VNOS C) an d follow up interview s. Additionally, all of the 005) NOS themes. All of the participant preservice teachers were able to link their NOS understandings to their specific research
95 experiences. The authors suggest that the positive changes in NOS understandings were due to participation in seminars and jou rnaling activities designed to explicitly address target NOS outcomes. An interesting finding of this research is that the context of research itself seemed to play less of a role in impacting NOS perspectives than did the seminars and the journaling respe ctively. The value of the research experience was as a context for reflection rather than as an implicit factor for influencing NOS ideas. Limited or no gains from an explicit approach in non formal settings One study, which warrants discussion here, was conducted in the context of a one week science camp for gifted Taiwanese middle school students (Liu & Lederman, 2002). Alt hough, this science camp differed in many ways from typical research apprenticeship experiences, it is discussed in this section beca use the experience was based between this experience a nd a research apprenticeship were that the instructors of the camp were not professional scientists, nor was the scientific research conducted in a working professional laboratory. Student participants responded to an open ended NOS questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the science camp. This NOS questionnaire was constructed to be sensitive to Chinese culture as it related to the construction of scientific knowledge. For example, one of the questions on this instrument related to the scientific nature of Chinese medicine. During the program, students participated in NOS activities and reflective discussions in addition to their participation in scientific inquiry. Students responded to the questionnaire again at the end of the camp. Many students held sophisticated NOS understandings at the beginning of the program. Most of these views remained unchanged at the end of the
96 program. The authors attribute these results to a ceiling effect due to these students being highly gifted and already holding sophisticated NOS understandings upon entering the camp. Secondly, they suggest that one week may not be enough time to impact NOS understandings through an explicit approach. In summary, very few studies have investigated an explicit approach to influencing NOS ideas of participants of appren ticeship programs. Those that have demonstrate the benefits of such an approach (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). One study, not technically conducted in the context of a research apprenticeship, does not document positive benefits of an expli cit approach in a non formal camp setting (Liu & Lederman, 2002). Since only three studies took such an approach in the context of non formal science settings, the next section examines studies that investigated efforts to influence NOS ideas in the contex t of school science. The interventions in this next section predominately employed an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning and therefore add much to the discussion of the effectiveness of the explicit approach. NOS in School Science Attention is now turned to empirical investigations of the impact of efforts to influence NOS ideas of learners in school science settings. The thirteen studies examined here report on efforts to influence NOS ideas of elementary learners, secondary learners, undergra duate teaching assistants and preservice and inservice teachers who are studying science and/or science education in a formal school setting. Table 2 2 summarizes these studies on the basis of the approach to NOS teaching and learning that was employed, th e methods used to assess participant NOS ideas and the
97 these studies took an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning. The studies are presented in the table in the order that they are discussed in this section. Explicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in School Science The majority of these studies utilized an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning. In this approach, the science learners as a r esult of purposeful planning on the part of ins tructors, explicitly encounter NOS aspects. First, studies exhibiting gains from an explicit approach are examined in order of the education level of the participating learners. Next, studies exhibiting little or no gains from an explicit approach are discussed. Gains from explicit approaches in school science Elementary learners. Akerson and Volrich (2006) i nvestigated the impact of a preservice eflective approach to NOS teaching and learning with her first grade students during her internship. An open ended questionnaire was used to determine the NO S perspectives of both this preservice teacher (VNOS B) and her students (VNOS D) Results indicat ed that this particular preservice teacher held sophisticated perspectives of NOS whereas h er students did not. During the preservice with her students she explicitly introduced target NOS aspects (the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientifi c knowledge varies in certainty) embedded them within the scienc e content that was being taught and provided opportunities for her students to reflect on the similarities between classroom activities and the work of practicing scientists through discussio n. Following the internship, the students in the class responded to the open ended questionnaire again. Results indicated that the first grade students had made significant improvements in their understandings of the imagination and creativity involved in the
98 construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty The authors attribute the success of this approach to the prior experiences that the preservice teacher had in her teacher education program both to l earn from and to teach using an explicit and r eflective approach to NOS instruction. Akerson and Hanuscin (2007) sim ilarly studied the impact of a three year long profess ional development program on inservice elementary science teachers views of NOS, their classroom p ractices in implementing NOS strategies and their student s view s of NOS. This professional developmen t included traditional explicit and reflective approaches (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) to influencing teacher views of NOS in addition to opportuniti es for teachers to design and implement similar curriculum with their own students. These activities included the use of pictures with multiple meanings, identifying the internal workings of mysterious devises (black box activities) and writing stories tha t account for patterns of animal tracks (Tricky tracks). Open ended questionnaires (VNOS B and VNOS D) at the beginning and the end of this program revealed that both these teacher participants (n=6) and their students (n=33) held more sophisticated concep tions of NOS at the end of the program. Gains in understanding intervention was that the preservice teachers were confronted with the lack of explicit NOS instruction present i n their existing curriculum and subsequently came to the decision that they would need to make their own curriculum modifications. Secondary learners. One study investigated th e development of seventh grade NOS ideas over a three month period of time (Khishfe, 2008). Eighteen seventh grade students in a class taught by a teacher who held sophisticated
99 understandings of NOS were the participants of the study. The students participated in two inquiry oriented units covering the topics of the struct ure and function of living things and ecosystems and populations. During these units, the students conducted three inquiry oriented activities. In one of these activities, students were asked to draw and describe an animal given a diagram of its skeleton. In another, students dissected a squid and gave explanations of the functions of structures they encountered. Finally, students collected and identified macro invertebrates in an effort used to report on the water quality of a river. Four aspects of NOS we re explicitly discussed and reflected upon following each of these activities. These aspects were the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, the creative nature of scientific knowledge and the differences be tween observations and inferences. These knowledge, the forms of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. Students were administered an open ended NOS questionnaire three times during the intervention and a subset of the students were interviewed in order to verify author interpretations of student responses to the questionnaire. Findings from this e targeted aspects of NOS were positively impacted by the explicit and reflective intervention that accompanied the inquiry activities in a school setting. The author suggests that the NOS ideas of these students developed along a continuum of informed per NOS views, from nave to more informed, appeared to undergo a developmental
100 Undergraduates In another study, a group a science educators concerned with the role that instructor NOS views plays on the development of preservice teacher views sought to examine the effectiveness of a professional development program designed to enhance the NOS ide as of undergraduate teaching assistants of a preservice science teacher education course (Hanuscin et al. 2006). During the program, nine undergraduate teaching assistants met weekly with the faculty instructor of the preservice science teacher education c ourse. In these meetings, the undergraduate teaching assistants were introduced to NOS aspects as presented in science education reform documents (e.g. AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996), participated in explicit NOS activities previously discussed in this literature review (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998), held discussions related to NOS aspects and examined the NOS views of the preservice teachers enrolled in the science teacher education course. Sources of data for this study were pre and post professional developm ent responses to an open ended questionnaire (VNOS C), interviews and audio recordings of weekly meetings. Initially, although some undergraduate teaching assistants held sophisticated understandings of some NOS aspects, none of them held sophisticated und erstandings of all aspects. As a result of this intervention, the participants showed gains in understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scientific methods, the forms of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. Teachers. Akerson et al. (2000) also investi gated the impact of an explicit and reflective approach o n the NOS conceptions of 50 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a science methods course. At th e onset of this course, the pre service teachers completed an open ended questionnaire. This questionnaire coupled with
101 semi structured interviews rev ealed that the majority of the participants held nave understandings of NOS. During the course, preservice teachers participated in 10 di fferent hands on activities (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) that specifically addressed seven targeted NOS aspects aspects These students also completed t w o reflection papers that asked them to link readings a nd a video to the seven explicitly addressed NOS aspects. At the end of the course, students again completed the open ended questionnaire and were interviewed. The results of this post assessment indicated that substantial NOS gains had been made by many o f the participants during the course. Gains were exhibited in all of the target NOS aspects. However, very few of the participants held complete sophisticated views on all seven o f the targeted NOS aspects. The findings empirically demonstrate d the value o f an explicit and refle ctive approach in impacting preservice science teacher conceptions of NOS. In another related study, Scharmann, et al. (2005) exa mined the impact of an explicit and reflective approach in a science methods course on preservice secon dary e study was conducted with a total of nineteen preservice hat the course was offered. Preservice teachers were explicitly introduced to the NOS aspect that scientific knowledge is constructed participated in hands on inquiry activities, r ead history of science articles and wrote reaction papers to assigned readings as well as a final reflection paper as they specifically examined the on going debate over issues related to evolution and intelligent design. The instructors of the course used the reflective writings of the
102 preservice teachers to evaluate the NOS conceptions that they held as well as to revise th e course for subsequent semesters that it was offered The authors conclude d that the approach was effective in positively impacting the preservice teachers views of NOS. They base d this claim on the finding that none of the participants in the third offe ri ng of the course believed that intelligent design was more scientific than evolution at the end of the course as evidenced in their final reflection paper s. The authors suggest ed that preservice teachers should be provided with multiple opportunities for reflection on NOS constructs, that NOS content should be carefully sequenced and that the issue of science versus religion should be a major topic of discussion. It should be noted that no formal assessment of NOS was conducted either prior to or followin g participation in this course. Therefore, claims regarding changes in preservice teacher NOS perspectives should appropriately be questioned. Lotter et al. (2009) similarly looked at the impact of repeated cycles of refl ection and instruction on preservi ce enactment of scientific inquiry in the classroom. The investigators utilized a questionnaire called t he Views of Scientific Inquiry and written reflection papers to examine the preservice OS perspectives and teaching philosophies. Lesson plans that they wrote and implemented during their practicum experiences were examined for their inquiry content and explicit attention to NOS. The nine participants in this study were all observed to grow in their understandings of NOS (the construction of scientific knowledge, and the diversity of scientific methods) and in their implementation of inquiry experiences over their practicum experience. The ex plicit attention that these preservice teachers gav e to NOS was less evident in their planning for instruction and
103 when it was present in lesson plans it was usually as a supplemental addition even though it was a required component of the practicum course. The authors of this stu dy attribute d the success of the approach to the repeat ed opportunities for preservice teachers to practice teaching and subsequently write reflections of their experiences. Limited or no gains from explicit approaches in school science Only one study demonstrates limited gains i n NOS ideas among learners experiencing an explicit approach (Abd El Khalick & Lederman, 2000). It should be noted that the undergraduate students in this study did not participate in reflective opportunities. Undergraduate students. Ab d El Khalick and Led erman (2000 ) utilized a pre and post open ended questionnaire to exam ine the impact of an explicit approach used in the context of history of science courses on 166 undergraduate and and on 15 preservice science teachers views of NOS. T he y noticed very little changes in participant NOS perspectives across all targeted aspects of NOS ideas However, they did document greater positive changes among the preservice science teachers who had prior experiences with the target NOS aspects in sci ence methods courses. This study sug gests that preservice teachers should be exposed to NOS in their methods course prior to enrollment in history of science courses as participation in history of science courses alone may not be an explicit enough approac h to influencing learner NOS ideas The results of this entire empirical literature base demonstrate that the explicit approach, when accompanied with reflective opportunities, is very effective at influencing learner conceptions of NOS in traditional sch ool settings for a wide variety of learners from elementary students to inservice science teachers.
104 Implicit Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning in School Science Only a handful of studies claim to investigate the impact of an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning in the context of school science settings. Those that actually do investigate an implicit approach look specifically at the influence of participation in inquiry activities in school settings on the development of learner NOS ideas. Gains from implicit approaches in school science Secondary learners. One study seems to indicate the positive impact of an implicit approach in a school science setting (Yerrick, 2000). In this investigation, marginalized high school students participated in a course that emphasized open because the students posed questions and designed methods for collecting empirical data that they analyzed in order to obtain answers. An e xample of one of the student (Yerrick, 2000, p. 815). Five of the students were interviewed at the beginning of the course and then again after twenty weeks of participating in the open inquiry investigations. The interview protocols focused on the nature of the construction of arguments within scientific discourse practices. At the beginning of the experience, students held the perspective that knowledge claims in scientific arg uments were knowledge claims shifted to reflect their tentative nature. Student language when talking (Yerrick, 2000, p. 822). The findings of this study indicate d that lower track students participating in highly authentic open inquiry experiences may develop sophisticated understandings of NOS as a result of an implicit approach in a school science setting.
105 Teachers. Palmquist & Finley (1997) examine d the influence of a science teacher program on preservice teacher NOS ideas. Using a survey at the beginning and the end of the program accompanied by follow up interviews, they demonstrated si gnificant gains in participant NOS ideas. Of the nine preservice teachers in this study, only two of them held overall sophisticated views of NOS at the beginning of the program. At the end of the program, the number increased to seven The authors attribu te d the gains to an implicit approach utilizing conceptual change approaches and cooperative learning strategies. The gains were exhibited in the NOS areas of the construction of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scientific methods and the forms of sc ientific knowledge. Others have questioned the degree to which the approach used in this study can be classified as implicit (Bell, Lederman & Abd El direct instruction was provided, and supports the view that the nature of science, like any other cognitive from the Palmqui st and Finley (1997) study seem to advocate for the merits of an explicit approach rather than an implicit approach. Limited or no gains from implicit approaches in school science Elementary learners. practical epistemologies (Sandoval, 2005) devel oped over the course of an inquiry intervention. The intervention consisted of students participating in ten different inquiry activities related to force and motion. The inquiry activities were described by the authors as being examples of guided inquiry in that the students were provided with the questi ons to be investigated. Data were collected in the form of video recordings, field notes, interviews and pre and post
106 interviews were designed in order to p. 8). Results of the study indica intervention as a result of comparisons of the pre and post skills. Pre interviews revealed that most of the students held nave understandings of NOS. Although a few students showed some gains in understandings of NOS over the course of the experience, the authors conclude d the variability in the certainty of scientific knowledge remained unchanged. Additionally, the authors state d interviews, some students changed their ideas, held a more nave view toward their own inquiry, and believed tha 2010, p. 14). Even though the views of their own practical epistemologies were negatively influenced, their views of professional scientists and the diversity of scientific methods remaine d unchanged. The authors discuss ed how students who held sophisticated understandings of NOS showed the greatest development of inquiry abilities. They conclude d with a rationale for a more explicit and reflective approach to influencing practical epistemo logies than the one that was taken here. The results of this study seem to correspond with those by Ryder and Leach (1999) in their investigation of the links between gains in NOS ideas among participants of a research apprenticeship utilizing an implicit approach and the epistemic involvement that they experienced. Here in a school science setting relying on an
107 implicit approach, no impact on NOS ideas through participation in inquiry experiences is evidenced when the students take no active role in the d evelopment of a research question or the methods used to investigate it. Secondary learners. Other studies demonstrate the limits of the implicit approach on secondary student NOS ideas in the context of school science settings. Moss (2001) conducted an in terview based study with five high school students of varying academic ability levels. The students participated in a project based environmental science class that involved participation in high level inquiry experiences in field settings albeit not at pr ofessional settings with mentor scientists. Results of this study indicated that all of the students held sophisticated understandings that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. However, the majority of the participants showed limited change over an en tire school few of the participants did show positive changes in NOS understandings that the author attributed to participation in science inquiry. For example, when positive change, the author said activities in which he was able to explore the notion of causality re garding forest health approach would have been more effective than this implicit approach exhibited, the Although we believe nature of science learning should be made explicit throughout science instruction, there may be an important role for implicit messages as well, as student conceptions did p. 788). Again it must
108 be emphasized that the author believed that the implicit approach had a very limited Another study investigated the influence of an implicit approach for secondary learners in the context o f a traditional school setting (Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). In this study, high school students participated in a four week inquiry based unit on evolution. The researchers investigated how such participation in inquiry might influence ings of nature of science through an implicit approach. During the four week unit, students participated in two computer based guided inquiry experiences where students were provided with the questions to investigate. In the first, students investigated na tural selection as it related to finches on the Galapagos Islands. In the second, students explored how bacteria could develop antibiotic resistance. Eight students were interviewed before and after the unit in order to examine their NOS ideas. The authors found that the students thought that scientific investigations were about establishing right ways of viewing the world. The students seemed to lack a sophisticated understanding of how science varies in certainty. Additionally, the students held nave und erstandings of the social construction of scientific knowledge. The results indicated that such understandings on the part of the students did not change as a result of the implicit approach. In their discussion, the authors suggest ed that the students did not hold stable coherent NOS understandings. They also mention ed that the results they obtained may have been influenced by the interview professional epistemologies and their v iews of their own engagement in scientific
109 Morrison, 2003, p. 383). The authors in addition to providing opportunities for explicit discourse regarding science epistemologies while students are conducting scientifi c inquiries. These suggestions are different from those made by science educators arguing for the use of an explicit approach. In summary, explicit and reflective approaches are seen to be effective in influencing learner NOS ideas, whereas implicit appro aches through inquiry experiences are not as effective in the context of school science settings. Perhaps this is due to the great differences between professional science experiences and school science experiences in terms of the features of canonical aut henticity. Studies Comparing Various Approaches in School Science Settings Finally, empirical studies that compare the effects of various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS are discussed. No studies of this type have been conducted in the cont ext of a research apprenticeship. As such, all of the studies reviewed here report findings speaking to the effectiveness of various approaches in traditional school science settings. Six comparison of approaches studies are reviewed in this section. Table 2 3 summarizes these studies according to the participants, the approaches that were compared, the methods used to do so and the reported results. These studies are presented in the table in the order that they are discussed. Again discussion of target NO
110 are used even when the authors of these studies describe their results in other specific terms from different c onsensus lists of NOS aspects. Secondary learners. The earliest study reviewed here examined the effectiveness of an inquiry based approach to influencing participant NOS understandings compared with a traditional lecture oriented approach in a middle sch ool science classroom (Meichtry, 1992). Over the course of 26 weeks, two groups of students were compared. These students included sixth, seventh and eighth grade students from the same school district. One of the two groups (n=809) participated in an inno adolescents, activities that improve reasoning, decision making, and habits of disciplined inquiry, and the use of cooperative learning as the primary grouping y, 1992, p. 390). This first group of students served as the experimental group. The other group of students (n=491) was taught science in a traditional manner. Student understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge, the forms of scientific kno wledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty were assessed at the beginning and the end of the school year by using a modified version of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (Rubba & Anderson, 1978), a Likert scale instrument. Results reve aled no significant differences in changes in NOS understandings between the two groups. In fact, student understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge actually decreased significantly for the experimental group and did not for the control gro up. The authors make the argument that even though the curriculum utilized by the experimental group was designed to explicitly
111 this reason, the approach is classified here as a predominately implicit one utilizing inquiry experiences. It is not altogether surprising then that no impact on student NOS ideas from an implicit approach in th e context of a school setting was obse rved in this study. The results are consistent with those of Moss (2001) and Wu and Wu (2010) in demonstrating the limited impact of the implicit approach utilizing inquiry in school science settings. It is worth menti oning that science educators currently have questions regarding the validity of forced choice quantitative instruments such as the N ature of S cientific K nowledge S cale for assessing NOS ideas held by learners (Lederman et al., 1998). Wagner & Levin (2007) similarly compared an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning with a traditional approach to science teaching and learning. In their study, 97 middle school science students from Israel were divided into two groups. One of the groups (the experimen tal group) studied five different science topics and participated in informal and reflective writing tasks after each. The informal writing tasks were in the forms of stories, diaries and debates. The following is an example of one of the informal writing appeared in the sky of our planet. The sun radiates continuous heat on earth. Write a (Wagner & Le vin, 2007, p. 311). The reflective writing tasks prompted students to think about the challenges of the informal writing tasks. Students in the other group (the control group) studied the same science topics in a traditional way with no writing or reflecti ve opportunities. In order to assess participant NOS ideas both before and after
112 the intervention, the authors utilized a Likert scale instrument that measured participant understandings of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowl edge varies in certainty. Results indicated a significant impact on understandings of these dimensions of NOS for participants in the experimental group. On the other hand, participants in the control group exhibited no gains in their NOS ideas. To a cert ain degree, these results are consistent with the findings of Meichtry (1992) in that studying science content from a traditional approach does not influence participant understandings of NOS. However, the results are unique in the sense that they illustra te positive changes in participant NOS understandings resulting from an implicit intervention that did not rely on an inquiry approach. This study demonstrates the power of reflective writing apart from participation in hands on scientific inquiry on parti Another study specifically compares an implicit inquiry approach like that of Meichtry (1992) with an explicit and reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning in the context of middle school science in a classroom sett ing (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002). In this study, 62 sixth graders from Lebanon were divided into two groups. Both groups participated in the same six inquiry activities over 10 weeks and were given an open ended NOS questionnaire targeting the multiple NOS aspects including the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty prior to and following the intervention. One of these gro ups received no NOS instruction and therefore any gains in NOS understandings would h ave resulted from participation in scientific inquiry alone an implicit approach The other group was explicitly
113 introduced to the targeted NOS aspects and discussed the ways that they related to the inquiry activities in which they participated. The stu dents that received explicit instruction in NOS exhibited more gains in understandings of the targeted aspects than did the implicit group. Such fi ndings suggest that an explicit and reflective approach to NOS instruction is more powerful than an implicit approach. However, given the nature of the inquiry activities that these students participated in, there are questions regarding the transferability of these findings to more authentic contexts such as research apprenticeships. Of the six inquiry activitie s that the students participated in, four were simple experiments and none involved ill defined problems that could be perceived to be of any personal relevance to the students. In fact, all of the inquiry activities were guided by questions that were prov ided to the students without any explicit connections to their everyday lives. For dif ferent sized jars and same sized candles. They then measured either the time it took for the candle to burn out or compared the relative brightness of the burning candles. inq uiry activities, experiences like these are far removed from the actual practice of working scientists. Additionally, the experiences were disconnected from the real world concerns of these students. In real science practice, scientists are personally inve sted in meaningful research. This could explain why students who participated in the activities without explicit instruction on target NOS aspects exhibited no development of
114 a deeper understanding of NOS as assessed by questionnaires that asked them about the practices of working scientists. A recent study, similar to that of Khishfe and Abd El Khalick (2002), was conducted in order to investigate the impact of explicit and reflective discussions of NOS following laboratory experiences for middle school s tudents on their conceptions of the construction of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty (Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). Yacoubian and BouJaoude also sought to examine if middle school students exhibited any gains in unders tandings of NOS through participating in the inquiry experiences without any opportunities for explicit reflection. The participants of this study were 38 sixth grade students from Lebanon enrolled in the same science course in two different sections. Rand omly, one of the sections was assigned to be the control group and one was assigned to be the experimental group. Both the control group and the experimental group completed the same eight guided inquiry laboratory investigations working in groups of two. The researchers the research question and the methods used to investigate it, but the solution was characteristics for three of these experiences ( Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010 p.1235) Following participation in each laboratory inquiry, the students in the control group answered have that a chemical change took plac questions from the dramatic chemical change inquiry ( Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010 p. 1252) The
115 teacher then engaged the class in an extended discussion about the science content relevant to the inquiry they had just completed. Alternatively, the students in the experimental group answered individual open ended NOS questions following each examples of open ended NOS questions from the dramatic chemical change inquiry ( Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010 p.1251) Following this, the students in the experimental group participated in an extended whole class discussion in which the teacher asked the students additional reflective questions intended to make target NOS aspects explicit. A modified form of the VNOS (Abd El Khalick, 2002) was used as a pre and post assessment for both the control and the experimental group. This questionnaire allowed for students to communicate their own NOS perspectives through open ended responses. In addi tion to the questionnaire responses other data sources for this investigation included written responses to the open ended NOS post lab questions from the experimental group, videotapes of all the inquiry experiences from both groups, and follow up interv iews from participants of both groups. Analysis of the questionnaire responses revealed that at the beginning of the experience, most of the students in both groups held inadequate views of all of the target NOS aspects with the most inadeq uate views being held in regard to the construction of scientific knowledge At the end of the experience, most of the students in the control group continued to hold the same inadequate NOS views, whereas a substantial number of students in the experimental group shifted their perspectives on target NOS aspects to more adequate views. The
116 authors conclude d that an implicit approach to NOS through inquiry activities did not influence student perceptions of NOS. They mention ed their study as lending further support to the n otion that the most effective way to influence NOS conceptions is through explicit and reflective approach es These findings are consistent with those of Khishfe and Abd El Khalick (2002). The authors do address some of the anomalies in their data set. One of these is that some of the students (although a small percentage) in the control group did exhibit positive changes in NOS understandings. The authors attribute this to the epistemic involvement required of the students as they participated in inquiry e xperiences. They make the same argument made by Bell and colleagues (2003) to account for positive changes in NOS perspectives they observed in one student participating in an authentic research experience. Another anomaly is that a number of the students in the experimental group did not exhibit positive changes in their perspectives regarding the target aspects of NOS. This is explained usi ng videotape data that indicate that not all of the students were participating in the reflective discussions followi ng the inquiry activities Additionally, the authors say that perhaps some students held misconceptions regarding NOS that were so deeply entrenched that the amount of time and specific attention given to these misconceptions through the experimental treat ment was not enough to influence conceptual change. Again, as with the Khishfe and Abd El Khalick (2002) study, the results of this study are not entirely surprising. Students in the implicit group participated in very tightly controlled guided inquiries in which they investigate d question s that really had no personal value to them through provided laboratory procedures that did not come close
117 to representing the actual practices of working scientists. It follows that merely participating in these activiti as indicated by assessments that asked them about the practices of professional scientists. Having demonstrated the comparative effectiveness of the explicit and reflective approach over the implicit inquiry embedded approach (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002), Khishfe & Lederman (2006) turned their attention to a comparison of the effectiveness of different types of explicit/reflective approaches in influencing learner NOS ideas. In this study, 42 nint h grade students were divided into two groups. One group experienced an explicit approach in the context of a unit on global climate change. The authors describe this approach as an explicit integrated approach. The other group studied NOS aspects as a sta nd alone unit apart from the global climate change context. This group is described as experiencing an explicit non integrated approach. All participants responded to an open ended NOS questionnaire at the beginning of the six week intervention and again a t the end of the experience. Follow up interviews of participants were used to further clarify their responses to the questionnaire. Results indicated that prior to instruction, students from both groups held (2005) NOS themes. Following the intervention, participants from both groups exhibited gains in understandings of all group. The findings speak to the relative effectiveness o f the explicit approach as has been documented previously (e.g. Khishfe, 2008). The findings also suggest that there
118 may be some benefit (albeit small) to teaching NOS aspects in the context of some broader scientific topic. Teachers. Bell et al. (2010) take the work of Khishfe and Lederman (2006) a step further by comparing four treatments: An implicit integrated, an implicit non integrated, an explicit integrated and an explicit non integrated approach to NOS teaching and learning in the context of a pr eservice science teacher education program. The explicit groups participated in NOS activities previously described (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) followed by explicit and reflective NOS discussions. The implicit groups participated in the same NOS inqu iry activities without any explicit and reflective debriefing. The integrated groups conducted the activities in the context of a global climate change unit whereas the noni ntegrated groups participated in the activities as part of a stand alone unit. Usi ng an open ended questionnaire (VNOS B) and follow up interviews with 75 preservice teachers, the authors demonstrated significant gains in also demonstrated that preservi ce teachers who experienced the explicit non integrated approach were able to make connections between their NOS understandings and new situations. These findings are consistent with the results of Khishfe and Lederman (2006). They also add to the results of this previous study in that they illustrate the ineffectiveness of an implicit inquiry approach to NOS teaching and learning regardless of whether or not it is integrated within a certain science topic. Comparison studies of various approaches to the t eaching and learning of NOS in the context of school science settings reveal the overall merits of explicit approaches over implicit approaches. There is one exception to these general results that
119 demonstrates the effectiveness of the uses of reflective w ritings apart from explicit NOS instruction in positively influencing participant NOS ideas (Wagner & Levin, 2007). The limited effectiveness of an implicit approach in the context of inquiry experiences in classroom experiences (e.g. Meichtry, 1992; Khish fe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010) stands in contrast to the relative effectiveness of this approach in highly authentic research apprenticeship experiences (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001; Burgin et al., 2011; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ryder & Leach, 1999). Perhaps this is due to the limited levels of authenticity present in classroom science inquiry activities in terms of the differences between participation in them and in professional scientific practices. Summary Research apprenticeships ar e contexts for science learning that provide opportunities for participation in scientific practices that are vastly more canonically authentic than those found in the typical school science setting (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Participation in research appre nticeships has been empirically demonstrated to result in the formation of science identities (e.g. Bliecher, 1996; Charney et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004) and the development of scientific skills and understandings (e.g. Burgin et al., 2011; Ritchie & Rigano, 1997; R yder & Leach, 1999). Among the understandings developed through participation in research apprenticeships are NOS ideas (Sadler et al., 2010). NOS ideas have been conceptualized in many different ways, but recently h ave been described in t erms of four aspects; the construction of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scientific methods, the forms of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty (Sandoval, 2005). Other lists of consensus NOS aspects
120 (e.g. Lederman e t al., 2002) can be condensed into these four themes. Assessing learner conceptions of NOS is problematic, but most science educators agree on replacing traditional quantitative instruments with open ended questionnaires, interviews and ethnographic approa ches (Lederman et al., 1998). Studies investigating the impact of various approaches to NOS teaching and learning in the context of research apprenticeships almost overwhelmingly look at the merits of the implicit approach (e.g. Aydeniz et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2003; Bleicher, 1996; Burgin et al., 2011; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996). Of the eighteen studies reviewed understandings of NOS ideas, eleven report gains from such an impl icit approach (e.g. Bleicher, 1996; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996) and seven report limited or no gains (e.g. Aydeniz et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2003). Such results are in con clusive regarding the effectiveness of the implicit approach in the context of research a pprenticeship experiences. Only three studies investigate the impact of an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning in the context of research apprenticeships and other non formal settings (Charney et al., 2007; Liu & Lederman, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2004). Two of these studies demonstrate positive gains in NOS understandings associated with an explicit approach. Since, only three studies reviewed here investigate the explicit approach in the context of research apprenticeships, studies examining app roaches to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of school science were discussed. Of the thirteen studies f alling under this category, eight took an explicit approach (e.g. Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Khishfe, 2008; Lotter et al., 2009). All but o ne of the interventions described in
121 these studies (Abd El Khalick & Lederman, 2000) also provided participants with reflective opportunities. These explicit and reflective approaches to NOS teaching and learning in school contexts consistently demonstrate NOS conceptions. Of the five studies conducted in school settings that investigated the impacts of participation in science inquiry on the development of NOS ideas, three demonstrated no significant gains from implicit a pproaches (Moss, 2001; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Wu & Wu, 2010). Finally, the only studies that systematically compared various approaches to NOS teaching and learning were conducted in school science settings (e.g. Meichtry, 1992; Khishfe & Abd El Khali ck, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). When explicit approaches were compared with implicit inquiry approaches, the explicit approach was consistently demonstrated to be more effective. However, due to the limited authentic nature of inquiry experiences i n school settings, questions remain as to the transferability of these results to more authentic settings such as research apprenticeships. It was also demonstrated through these studies that at least some relationship exists between reflective writing opp ortunities and implicit impacts on participant NOS ideas (Wagner & Levin, 2007). In conclusion, the benefits of the explicit and reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning are consistently revealed in the empirical literature reporting on this appro ach in both school and research apprenticeship experiences. However, the impacts of the implicit approach are debatable in the context of authentic science experiences. Additionally, there is very limited understanding of the role that reflection plays in influencing NOS ideas. Finally, questions remain in regard to the individual
122 aspects of research apprenticeship experiences outside of accompanying organized seminars that may possibly be related to the development of sophisticated NOS understandings (Burg in et al., 2011). Is epistemic involvement an important experiential component of research apprenticeships in implicitly influencing NOS ideas? Some would argue yes (Ryder and Leach, 1999) whereas others are not so convinced (Burgin et al., 2011). This pre sent study is an attempt to further investigate some of these unanswered questions and create deeper understanding of the merits of various approaches to NOS teaching and learning in the context of research apprenticeships.
123 Table 2 1. Stud ies reporting on impacts on NOS ideas in the context of research apprenticeships Refs. P( n) a Approach Methods Results b Cooley & Bassett (1961) SL (55) Implicit Pre post design: FAS, Author Reported Gains (V) Bleicher (1996) SL (1) Implicit, Reflection Field notes, videos Gains (C & V) Ritchie & Rigano (1996) SL (2) Implicit Field notes, interviews Gains (C & V) Richmond & Kurth (1999) SL (7) Implicit, Reflection Interviews, journals Gains (C & V) Barab & Hay (2001) SL (24) Implicit, Reflection Fiel d notes, videos, interviews and elect. notebooks Gains (C) Burgin et al. (2011) SL (18) Implicit Multiple interviews Some gains (C & V) Sabatini (1997) UG (10) Implicit Focus group interview, Questionnaire Gains (C, D & F) Ryder & Leach (1999) UG (11) Implicit Interviews Gains (C & V) Yen & Huang (1998) PT (10) Implicit Pre post design: questionnaires interviews Gains (D) Varelas et al. (2005) PT (3) Implicit Multiple interviews throughout the program Gains (C, D & F) Hay & Barab (2001) SL (24) Impli cit, Reflection Pre post design: open ended web based tests, field notes, videos, interviews Gains (F), No Gains (D) Bell et al. (2003) SL (10) Implicit Pre post design: VNOS B and interviews No significant gains (C, D, F & V) Buck (2003) SL (74) Impli cit Pre post design: interviews, surveys, BASSQ No significant gains (V) Van Eijck et al. (2009) SL (13) Implicit Interviews, field notes and videos Varying levels of understanding (C & V) Aydeniz et al. (2010) SL (17) Implicit Likert scale surveys and V OSI No significant gains (D & F), Sophisticated ideas (C & V)
124 Table 2 1. Continued Hsu et al. (2010) SL (13) Implicit Field notes and videos No gains (C) Ryder et al. (1999) UG (11) Implicit Pre post design: interviews No gains (V), Some gains (C) Hunter et al. (2007) UG (76) & FA (55) Implicit Interviews Limited gains (V) Charney et al. (2007) SL (30) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: checklist, questionnaire, AP bio test questions, journals Gains (V & F) Schwartz et al. (2004) PT (13) Explic it, Reflection Pre post design: VNOS C, interviews Gains (C, D, F & V) Liu & Lederman (2002) SL (29) Explicit Pre post design: questionnaire, interviews No significant gains (C, D, F & V) BASSQ, Beliefs about Science and School Science Questionnaire; F AS, Facts about Science test; VNOS B, Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire; VOSI, Views of Science Inquiry Questionnaire a Participants (P): Secondary Learners (SL), Undergraduate Students (UG), Preservice Teachers (PT) or Faculty Advisors (FA). b Re knowledge (C), the diversity of scientific methods (D), the different forms of scientific knowledge (including hypotheses, models, theories and laws) (F), scientific knowledge vari es in certainty (V).
125 Table 2 2. Studies reporting on impacts on NOS ideas in the context of school settings Refs. P( n ) a Approach Methods Results b Akerson & Volrich (2006) EL/PT (14/1) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: VNOS B, VNOS D, intervie ws, field notes Gains for EL (C & V) Akerson & Hanuscin (2007) EL/IT (33/6) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: VNOS B, VNOS D, interviews, field notes, lessons Gains for IT and EL (C, D, F & V) Khishfe (2008) SL (18) Explicit, Reflection Pre post de sign: Questionnaire and interviews Gains (C, F & V) Hanuscin et al. (2006) UTA (9) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: VNOS C, interviews and meeting recordings Gains (C, D, F & V) Akerson et al. (2000) PT (50) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: O pen ended questionnaires, interviews Gains (C, D, F & V) Scharmann et al. (2005) PT (19) Explicit, Reflection Analysis of reflection writings and class discussion Gains (C) Lotter et al. (2009) PT (9) Explicit, Reflection Pre post design: VOSI, intervie ws, reflection papers, portfolios Gains (C & D) Abd El Khalick & Lederman (2000) UG/PT (166/15) Explicit Pre post design: Questionnaires, interviews Limited gains (C, D, F & V) Yerrick (2000) SL (5) Implicit Pre post design: interviews, videos Gains ( V) Palmquist & Finley (1997) PT (15) Implicit Pre post design: surveys, interviews Gains (C, D & F) Wu & Wu (2010) EL (68) Implicit Videos, field notes, interviews No significant gains (D & V) Moss (2001) SL (5) Implicit Interviews No significant gain s (C, D, F & V) Sandoval & Morrison (2003) SL (8) Implicit Pre post design: interviews No significant gains (C & V) PD, professional development; VNOS, Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire a Participants (P): Elementary Learners (EL), Secondary Learners (SL), Undergraduate Students (UG), Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (UTA), Preservice Teachers (PT) or Inservice Teachers (IT). b knowledge (C), the diversity of scient ific methods (D), the different forms of scientific knowledge (including hypotheses, models, theories and laws) (F), scientific knowledge varies in certainty (V).
126 Table 2 3. Studies comparing various approaches to impacting NOS ideas in school settings R efs. P( n ) a Approaches Methods Results Meichtry (1992) SL (1300) Implicit (Inquiry) versus traditional (no inquiry) Pre post design: MNSKS No significant differences in changes in NOS ideas for both groups. Wagner & Levin (2007) SL (97) Implicit (Reflect ion) versus traditional Pre post design: Likert scale assessment Gains with the reflection group. No gains with the traditional group. Khishfe & Abd El Khalick (2002) SL (62) Implicit versus explicit/reflective Pre post design: Questionnaire, interviews Gains with the explicit/reflective group. Minimal gains with the implicit group. Yacoubian & BouJaoude (2010) SL (38) Implicit versus explicit/reflective Pre post design: POSE, videotapes, interviews Gains with the explicit/reflective group. Minimal gains with the implicit group. Khishfe & Lederman (2006) SL (42) Explicit integrated (global warming context) versus explicit nonintegrated Pre post design: Questionnaire, interviews Gains in both more in integrated group. Bell et al. (2010 ) PT (75) Comparison of Implicit integrated, implicit nonintegrated, explicit integrated and explicit nonintegrated Pre post design: VNOS B, interviews, artifacts Gains with both explicit groups. Minimal gains with both implicit groups. MNSKS, Modified N ature of Scientific Knowledge Scale; VNOS B, Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire; POSE, Perspectives on Scientific Epistemology Questionnaire a Participants (P): Secondary Learners (SL) or Preservice Teachers (PT)
127 Figure 2 1. Concept map illust rating literature review organization.
128 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study is a naturalistic exploration of the development of secondary student conceptions of Nature of Science (NOS) through participation in authentic scientific r esearch in the context of a research apprenticeship program A naturalistic inquiry has a number of distinguishing characteristics that relate directly to the features of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These are that the inquiry is carried out in a nat ural setting, the use of the human as an instrument, a reliance on tacit knowledge, the use of qualitative methods, the use of purposive sampling, inductive data analysis, the construction of grounded theory, emergent design, negotiated outcomes, the use o f case studies, idiographic interpretation, the tentative application of results, focus determined boundaries and a special criteria for establishing trustworthiness. Table 3 1 presents an example of how each characteristic is represented in this study. Ex amples of each will be discussed in detail as the chapter unfolds. The purposes of this study are two fold. The first is to explore the effectiveness of various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of a res earch apprenticeship expe rience In general, two such approaches have been described in the science education literature. One of these is an implicit approach in which students are provided with opportunities to conduct scientific inquiries with the assumption that their participa tion in scientific practices will positively impact their understandings of NOS. The second approach is an explicit approach that is often accompanied by reflection. In this approach, the development of sophisticated understandings of individual aspects of NOS is a specific instructional objective of the designers of an educational experience.
129 Explicit activities introduce students to these NOS aspects and then students reflect on how these activities and their own experiences in science relate to them. Lar ge numbers of research apprenticeship experiences rely on an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001; Bell et al., 2003) and many school science experiences have taken an explicit approach to NOS teaching and learning (e.g. A kerson et al., 2000; Khishfe, 2008). Although there are examples of explicit approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS in the context of research apprenticeships (e.g. Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004), they are very few in number. Addition ally, most empirical studies of the merits of these approaches have been single treatment case studies (e.g. Aydeniz et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2003; Khishfe, 2008). The few studies that compare both approaches through a multiple case study methodology (e. g. Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002) have been conducted in school science settings rather than in the context of research apprenticeship experiences. Finally, although some studies have examined the role of reflective writing in influencing NOS ideas (e.g. Wagner & Levin, 2007), this has yet to be investigated in the context of a research apprenticeship program. The apprenticeship program investigated in this study has a required seminar component that offers an ideal venue for an investigation of the implic it approach, the explicit approach and the role of reflection in each. Secondly, other influencing factors in addition to the approaches to NOS teaching and learning outlined above may be related to changes in participant understandings of NOS in the conte xt of research apprenticeship experiences (Burgin et al., 2011). The identification and examination of these other influential factors represents an additional
130 nature of thei r own participation in scientific practices and the degree to which they view this work as overlapping with the work of professional scientists were also investigated as a potential influencing factor. If students believe that their work is aligned with t h e realm of professional scientific practices, then it would not be unnatural to expect participation in a research apprenticeship program to have a potential influence on participant NOS ideas as revealed on instruments used to gauge their understandings o f professional science. This would alleviate some of the problems described by inquiries and their ideas of the knowledge construction that occurs in professional science. A theoretical framework has been previously described that outlines a possible relationship between participation in authentic science experiences and the degree to which l Figure 1 1 ). This theoretical framework provides the context for this study that aims to construct a new, albeit tentative, theory regarding the influential factors within this research appre nticeship experience and their i mpact on participant NOS ideas. This aim is consistent with the axioms of the naturalistic inquiry paradigm, namely that realities are constructed and multiple rather than the positivistic notion that reality is both single and tangible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). An application of constructivist grounded theory was the methodology employed as theory was allowed to emerge from the data tha t were collected in this study (Charmaz, 2006).
131 The remainder of the chapter is devoted to the methodological considerations of this research study. First the research questions are presented verbatim and discussed. Next, attention is turned to issues of research design. In discussing the design of this study, the setting, the population and sam pling and the interventions are described in detail. The stages of data collection and the instruments and strategies that were employed are then presented along the time frame it took to do so. Following this, the phases of data analysis as they relate to providing answers to the research questions guiding this study are outlined. The chapter concludes with a treatment of the criteria of trustworthiness for constructivist grounded theory including issues of credibility, originality, resonance and usefulnes s (Charmaz, 2006). Research Questions Question 1 What are the impacts of various approaches (implicit approach, reflective approach and explicit/reflective approach) to NOS teaching and learning on participan NOS ideas in the context of a research appre nticeship program? Sub question 1a Do various approaches to NOS teaching and learning result in any significant changes in participant Sub question 1b Are there significant differences in participant s between participan ts experiencing different approaches to NOS teaching and learning? Sub question 1c How are changes in NOS ideas different for participan ts experiencing different approaches to NOS teaching and learning?
132 The first research question and sub questions examine the influence of three different approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS on student conceptions of NOS. Sub question 1a drove an investigation of whether or not significant changes in NOS ideas occurred for any of the particip ants in the study regardless of which approach was used. An exploration of sub question 1b revealed the extent to which changes in NOS ideas are significantly different among students experiencing the various approaches. Through an examination of sub quest ion 2c, any differences among the changes in NOS ideas for students experiencing the different approaches could be described in detail. Question 2 How are participan laboratory placements during a research apprenticeship program? Sub question 2a What are the influencing factors that relate to changes in participant Sub question 2b How are the influencing factors related to changes in NOS ideas? The second research questio n and sub questions build on the first in that they acknowledge the possibility of additional factors beyond the specific approaches to NOS teaching and learning implemented in seminar settings that may influence the NOS ideas of participants of a research apprenticeship program. It is believed that one of these influencing factors may be the fit between the proposed theoretical framework ( Figure 1 1 ) and the perspectives of the participants in this study. An examination of these perspectives allowed the re searcher to make some claims regarding the degree
133 (Sandoval, 2005) and the influence of this relationship on participant NOS ideas. If participant conceptions were truly overla pping, then it was expected that practical wo rk in science might have i nfluence d formal conceptions of science apart from various approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS. Taken together, the results obtained through an investigation of these resear ch questions was used to construct a theory regarding the experiential aspects that may or may not be influential in the shaping of NOS ideas that accompanied participation in the investigated research apprenticeship program. Research Design Attention is now turned to the design of this naturalistic inquiry in order to provide some answers to the questions posed above. Although tempting to think of the following research design as an unchanging set of steps to be followed, it must be remembered that one of focus of the naturalist should be on adaptation and accommodation. Review, recycling, design p resented below evolved from its original form during the data collection and analysis phases of the study. As such, it is significantly different from the a priori research design that was used to plan this study. Setting The natural setting for this stud y was a research apprenticeship program designed for secondary students. This program will be hereafter referred to by the pseudonym the Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP). Research apprenticeships have been conceptualized for the purposes of this study as authentic experiences in which participants engage in scientific inquiry in professional settings under the mentorship of
134 a working scientist or scientists for the purposes of colle cting and analyzing data that are of value to the scientific community. The program serving as the context for this study fit the above description of research apprenticeships. The AESP was a seven week residential summer experience that was offered at a major research university in the Southeastern United States. This study was conducted in the 53 rd year of the program. Eighty eight qualified rising high school juniors and seniors were accepted for and enrolled in the program. Applicants were accepted on the basis of standardized test scores (e.g. PSAT, ACT), lette rs of recommendation from two math and/or science teachers and responses to three written essays one of which asked students to describe their interest in science and their long term car eer plans. As such, the AESP had been designed for highly achieving an d motivated students of math and science. The cost for the program was $3500 per student. Some scholarship funds were available for students with a demonstrated financial need. The primary focus of the AESP was on secondary student participation in highly authentic forms of scientific research. Participants worked for a minimum of 28 hours per week conducting scientific research in a research laboratory. Students were placed in laboratories based on their preferred area of scientific interest (e.g. life sc ience, physical science). Once placed, students worked under the direct guidance (mentorship) of a professional scientist or engineer and the graduate students working in their labs. Mentors included faculty and graduate students from the departments of en tomology and nematology, food science and human nutrition, periodontology, biomedical engineering, horticultural science, astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, zoology and medicine among many other departments. Students were immersed in the
135 everyday acti vities of a working laboratory within these departments. These activities included participation in laboratory group meetings, researching relevant scientific literature, planning of scientific research, using specialized laboratory equipment to collect an d analyze scientific data, writing an experimental research paper, creating a poster summarizing the study and giving an oral presentation of results and findings. In addition to the research component, participants attended lectures and seminars and part icipated in research discussion groups with other program participants who were researching similar scientific topics. In fact, all students were required to enroll in an interdisciplinary science seminar course for either dual enrollment credit or on a pa ss/fail basis. The seminars met twice a week. Past seminar topics have included applied conservation biology, evolutionary genomics, virology a nd neurobiology. Participants wer e presented with seminar course titles and descriptions and then rank ed their to p three choices. AESP personnel tried to accommodate the desires of the participants when making seminar assignments. Eight to ten such seminars are offered annually with an average enrollment of around ten participants in each. Finally, students participa ted in a number of social and recreational activities that included dances, talent shows, pizza parties, awards banquets and trips to amusement parks. The administrators of the AESP have a number of stated goals for participants. gned to provide challenging and inspiring experiences, to develop leadership qualities, and to stimulate interest in science (promotional brochure). Additionally, the administrators stated that participants are of knowledge and confidence that they will use throughout
136 administrators, this knowledge included an understanding of NOS. Population and Sampling The participants for this study were drawn from a total population (n=88) enrolled in the AESP during the summer of 2011. Institutional review board informed consent forms were distributed to this total population. Volunteers gave permission to participate in this research study. Since the participants of the study were minors, parental consent was also obtained. From the total population, a subset, consisting of the participants of three specific seminars was identified. The content focus of each of these seminars was a biological science topic examined from a genetics perspective. This helped make for random assignment across the three seminars, as students who enrolled in these seminars were all interested in biological sciences. The difference between these seminars was the appr oach to NOS teaching and learning employed in each. These three approaches, which will be described below in greater detail, were explicit/reflective, reflective and implicit respectively. Eleven participants were enrolled in the seminar taking an explicit /reflective approach, nine participants were enrolled in the seminar taking a reflective approach and ten participants were enrolled in the seminar taking an implicit approach. This resulted in the purposive selection of 30 participants for inclusion in th is study. From these 30 participants, six were identified as case study participants. These case study participants were made up of two representative members of each of the three intervention seminars. Additionally, these case study participants were sele cted based on the similarities between their laboratory placements, initial NOS ideas, the level of detail of their descriptions of these ideas and demonstrated room for development of these ideas. Al so worthy of noting is that out of
137 the six case study pa rticipants, three were placed in a laboratory with another AESP participant and two were recipients of scholarship funding. The approximately 30 participants and the six case study members selected from them were representative of the larger population enr olled in the research apprenticeship program in terms of gender and ethnicity. Table 3 2 displays the demographic characteristics for these six case study participants, whether or not they were working in partnership with another AESP participant in their laboratory placement, the seminar they were enrolled in the discipline of their laboratory context and the title of their research project. As can be seen, each of the six participants represents one unique case. Also indicated on this table are the two c ase study participants who were recipients of scholarship funds. The participants themselves selected the pseudonyms that appear in this table. The sampling employed in this study was naturalistic for a few reasons. First, Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue tha prediction was made that 30 participants would be included in this study based on an estimate of the average enrollment that could be expected for the three different seminars to be investigated. Although the actual number was 30, it could have been more or less than this number and it would have made no difference to the study itself. Also, the identification of case study part icipants was completely based on the determine when to stop sampling is informational redundancy, not a statistical As will be described below, the six
138 case study participants were sampled for follow up interviews regarding their pre and post responses to an open ended questionnaire targeting their NOS ideas. It was believed that informational redundancy would be achie ved when comparing these six participant interviews with the questionnaire responses from the entire population. Interventions The 30 participants in this study were enrolled in three different seminars each experiencing a different approach to the teachi ng and learning of NOS in the context of studying a biology related topic from a genetics perspective. Each seminar met twice a week over the duration of the apprenticeship experience and was co taught by graduate students of the university hosting the pro gram. Prior to the start of the program, the researcher of this study met with the graduate student instructors of each seminar in a joint planning meeting. During this time, all instructors were informed of the nature of the intervention in each seminar a nd discussions wer e held related to how genetics w ould be the perspective from which each biology related topic was covered. Observations were conducted periodically in each of the seminar s throughout the program to ensure that the interventions were takin g place according to plan. The three interventions have been labeled based on the approach that was employed. These approaches are the implicit, the implicit/reflective and the explicit/reflective approaches. Figure 3 1 provides an overview of the three di fferent seminars and the interventions that took place in each While the seminars were all related in terms of the science content examined, they differed in terms of the reflective opportunities and the introduction to NOS aspects provided to participant s. Table 3 3 describes the interventions experienced by the participants of the three seminars in greater detail with attention given to the time frame of implementing them
139 during the course of the seven week AESP. The interventions described in this table will now be discussed in the context of the seminars in which they took place. Implicit approach The first seminar from which participants were drawn took an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning. All of the participants in this seminar simultan eously participated in the authentic research apprenticeship experience. An implicit approach assumes that such participation will influence learner conceptions of NOS (Lederman, 2007; Sadler et al., 2010). This approach is frequently taken in the context of a research apprenticeship program where there seldom is opportunity for explicit instructional design aimed at impacting NOS ideas (e.g. Aydeniz et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2003; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999). The scientific content invest igated in this seminar was related to animal behavior. Reflective opportunities to connect participant understandings of NOS to the work that they were doing in their research lab and an explicit examination of NOS aspects through designed activities and r eflective discussions linking NO S aspects to animal behavior were not incorporated in this seminar. Reflective approach The second seminar that was investigated utilized a reflective approach. In this seminar, like the first, participants were engaged in authentic forms of scientific inquiry through their research apprenticeship experience. Participation in laboratory work could have possibly impacted participant conceptions of NOS as the result of an implicit approach. The topic of conservation was examin ed in this seminar from a genetics perspective. Additionally, the participants were provided with individual reflective opportunities. Although some empirical research studies have paired reflective
140 opportunities with an implicit approach (Barab & Hay, 200 1; Bleicher, 1996; Hay & Barab, 2001; Richmond & Kurth, 1999), these studies are few in number and the specific nature of the reflective activities are n ot clearly elaborated. In this seminar students responded to reflective journal prompts at the beginni ng of each meeting. The journal prompts and the time frame for their implementation are provided in A ppendix A. They were designed to engage the participants in reflecting on the links between their (2005) NOS aspects. Such reflection has been described as reflection on practice (Schn, 1983; 1987). Participants were provided with composition notebooks with these journal prompts attached. They took approximately ten minutes to respond to each prompt o n any given day. Participant notebooks were collected at the end of each seminar session and students were provided with feedback from the researcher following each meeting This feedback was used to encourage students to reflect deeply on the given prompt s. Like the participants of the implicit seminar, the participants of this seminar did not receive any explicit NOS instruction through activities, nor were explicit connections made between NOS aspects and the scientific content being studied in the semin ar. Explicit/reflective approach The final intervention took place in a seminar utilizing an explicit/reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning. This seminar was co taught by the researcher of this study. Although this approach has been taken in the context of research apprenticeship experiences (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004), it is much more common in the context of traditional school settings (e.g. Akerson et al., 2000; Khishfe, 2008; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Lotter et al., 20 09; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). Perhaps this is due to the lack of opportunities for explicitly
141 designed instruction in research apprenticeship experiences as a result of them taking place in non formal settings. The context of the AESP, like that invest igated by Schwartz and colleagues (2004), was rare in that it required participation in content seminars where an explicit/reflective approach could be implemented. Again in this context, as with the previously described seminars, all participants were sim ultaneously engaged in participation in authentic scientific inquiries. Evolution from a genetics perspective was the focus of the content being investigated in the seminar. The participants were provided with the same individu al reflective journal prompts (A ppendix A) and given feedback on their responses in the same way that was described when discussing the reflective approach. What distinguished the explicit/reflective seminar from the other seminars were the explicit NOS activities that were used to fo ster collaborative reflective discussions on NOS aspects as they related to the science topic being examined in the seminar. Many of these activities (e.g. Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) have been used by others when implementing an explicit/reflective a pproach (e.g. Akerson et al., 2000; Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Bell et al., 2010, Hanuscin et al., 2006). Table 3 4 lists the NOS activities that were used in the explicit/reflective seminar. Along with their description, the targeted NOS aspects for each a re identified. Following participation in explicit NOS activities, an instructor of the seminar (the researcher of this study) engaged the participants in reflective discussions relating various NOS aspects to t he topic of evolution from a genetics perspec tive Others have successfully implemented similar explicit/reflective approaches to NOS teaching and learning through embedding NOS aspects within a cutting edge science topic (Bell et al., 2010; Khishfe, 2008; Khishfe & Lederman, 2006).
142 Data Collection What follows is an overview of the phases of data collection and initial analysis that were conducted during and immediately followin g the AESP. Table 3 5 provides the time frame for data collection and initial analysis, along with descriptions of the phas es of the study and the participants that were involved. The plan outlined here was revised during the process of data collection and analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) emphasize initial data analysis) that most design changes will emerge, leading to recycling or extensions of analysis presented in Table 3 5 is a modified plan according to the eme rgent needs of the study as it unfolded. For example, it was originally planned that during week four, the researcher would narrow down the initial case study participants from six to three final case study participants. However, observations, field notes and interviews continued with the six initial case study participants for the duration of the program. Ideas about Science S urvey (ISS) The design outlined in T able 3 5 made use of an ope n ended NOS questionnaire, the Ideas about Science S urvey (ISS) (Appe ndix B) administered to participants of the study at the beginning of the AESP and again at its conclusion to document potential changes in participant NOS ideas. Others have used open ended questionnaires in a similar pre post methodological design to in vestigate the impact of various approaches to NOS teaching and learning in a variety of settings (e.g. Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Akerson & Volrich, 2006; Bell et al., 2003; Hanuscin et al., 2006; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2007; Yacou bian & BouJaoude; Yen & Huang, 1998).
143 The use of open ended questionnaires to assess conceptions of NOS is a relatively modern development in the history of science education research on NOS (Lederman et al., 1998; Lederman, 2007). From the 1950s through the mid 1990s assessment of learner NOS ideas was accomplished primarily through the use of quantitative instruments such as the Test on Understanding Science (Cooley & Klopfer, 1963) and the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (Rubba & Anderson, 1978). T hese instruments are representative of others that made use of multiple choice questions and Likert scale items to gauge student comprehension of the philosophy and epistemology of scientific knowledge. Some critiques have been made of such quantitative me asures of NOS ideas (Lederman et al., 1998). One such critique deals with the scoring of the instruments themselves. When student choices are marked as right or wrong, the perspectives of the developers of the instrument itself. At the time of the construction of these instruments, a Popperian (Popper, 1959) view of NOS with its emphasis on the approximation of truth dominated the philosophy of science. Since then, views of NOS have shifted to more Kuhnian (Kuhn, 1962) perspectives of the social construction of scientific knowledge and scientific revolutions resulting from paradigm shifts. As such, what would have been scored as correct at the time of the development of these instruments could possibly be scored as incorrect today. As a result of this critique and qualitative, open ng (of any (Lederman et al., 1998, p. 595).
144 To this end, open ended questionnaires paired with follow up interviews have been developed in order to allow students to expr ess their own perspectives regarding their NOS ideas. Among the most widely used open ended NOS questionnaire s is the Views of the Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) (Lederman et al., 2002). This questionnaire elicits learner perspectives regarding the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, scientific theories and laws, the creative and imaginative nature of scientific knowledge, the theory laden nature of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural embeddedness of scientific knowledge, the myth of the scientific method and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. As has previously been discussed, these seven epistemology. The first version of this instrument, the VNOS A, was developed by choice quantitative NOS measures. However, even these open ended assessment instruments documented differences between their interpretations of participant responses and participant descriptions of their own responses as indicated through follow up interviews. This demonstrated the need for follow up interviews in conjunction with the VNOS. A bd El Khalick, Bell and Lederman (1998) further modified the VNOS into a second version, the VNOS B. Initially all participants were interviewed to elicit their feedback regarding their responses to the VNOS B items. Over time, using the VNOS B to eli cit t he NOS perspectives of preservice science teachers in a number of studies, it became evident that it was unnecessary to interview all participants. A s the researchers became more cognizant of the meanings that participants ascribed to key terms and phrase s, and developed more
145 not imperative to interview all participants after administrations of the VNOS B. Depending on the sample size, the researchers were now obtaining redundan t meanings, categories, and themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) from interviews with 15 20% of participants (Lederman et al., 2002, p.505) The construct validity of the VNOS B was also established by comparing the differences in the interpretations of the respo nses made by an expert group of learners who held sophisticated NOS understandings and a group of learners who held NOS ideas that differed from consensus understandings of NOS (Bell, 1999). The results of this effort validity of the VNOS 507). Other versions of the VNOS have also been established. The VNOS C (Abd El the social and cultural embeddedness o f science and the myth of the scientific method. The VNOS D (Lederman & Khishfe, 2002) was tailored to meet the needs of middle school and elementary school learners. This document has been further modified into the VNOS D+ which is more suited to secondar y learners in particular. For the purposes of this study, the ISS was constructed (Appendix B) This survey consists predominately of items from the VNOS D+ with a handful of items from the VNOS C (items 12 and 14), an item from the VNOS B (item 9) and tw o items (items 3 and 8) written by the researcher. This survey was selected as the instrument of data collection for eliciting participant perspectives of NOS. This decision was made for a few reasons. First, the VNOS B (which is very similar to the VNOS D +) has been used before to collect data from secondary students in the context of a research apprenticeship (Bell et al., 2003). Secondly, the VNOS D+ was estimated to take 35 45 minutes for a participant to complete compared with an estimated 45 60 minute s for
146 completion of the VNOS C (Lederman et al., 2002). Given the limited time frame for administration of the survey during a 50 minute seminar, relying heavily on the VNOS D+ items was logical in this context Thirdly, the items of the VNOS D+ are easily were targeted in the explicit/reflective seminar. Finally, through correspondence with the developer of the VNOS D+, this instrument was identified as being the most appropriate for t his study. Student participants initially responded to the survey in the first week of the research apprenticeship experience (Table 3 5). As per the recommendation made by Lederman and colleagues (2002) six of the 30 participants in this study (20%) wer e selected for follow up interviews regarding their initial responses to the survey. The six students interviewed were the six case study participants whose selection criterion is explained below. These follow up, semi structured interviews were used to es tablish such, an interview protocol (Appendix B) was used to allow participants to elaborate on their responses to individual items from the survey. This interview pro tocol was drawn from the works of Abd El Khalick (1998) and Bell and colleagues (2003). The participant pre experience written responses to the survey were in part used to identify the six case study participants. The criterion for this identification is presented in the following section. This identification required an initial analysis of participant either nave, a mixture of responses, informed or unknown for each of Sand (2005) NOS aspects. Nave responses were those that did not conform to current
147 consensus understandings of NOS by stakeholders in science education, and informed element s of both nave and informed responses. This initial analysis process will be described in greater detail in the data analysis section of the chapter Finally, the survey was administered again to all of the 30 participants during the sixth week of the pr ogram (Table 3 5). Again, the six case study participants were purposively interviewed for clarification regarding their final written survey responses. Case studies Six evaluative case studies that included two participants from each of the three interven tion seminars were constructed as part of this research study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe evaluative case studies as judgmental descriptions that are built from both factual information and interpretations of those realities. The case studies are eva luative in that they attempt to offer some explanation of the factors influencing these on the part of the researcher. Figure 3 2 presents the data sources that were used to construct these final case study reports. As can be seen from this figure, survey data, interviews and observations were the data sources employed in telling the stories for the six participants. and pencil or brass inst rumentation [e.g. the ISS ] collected by the human instrument. These sources include i nterviews and/or 85, p. 267). As can be seen in
148 F igure 3 2, while c onventional NOS questionnaires we re included data s ources for the six case studies, both interviews and observati ons as human sources of data were major components of the case studies Additionally, interviews and observations lend themselves to the collection of rich information that is ideal for the cons truction of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). The ISS as described above, was used to identify six case study participants (two from each intervention seminar) that had similar initial conceptions of NOS ideas and that all exhibited room for growth. Addit ionally, these six participants were working in laboratories that were conducting bench top scientific research on non human samples (Table 3 2). This criterion e xcluded participants working on computer engineering or medical research projects. Another fac tor that distinguished these participants was that half of them were working with another program participant in their laboratory placement (Table 3 2). Over the duration of the AESP (Table 3 5) semi structured interviews and observations of laboratory wor k were conducted with the six case study participants. The remainder of this section will focus on the interviews and observations collected by the human as instrument from the six case study participants over the entire research apprenticeship experience. Sources of data for the case study participants included semi structured interviews conducted multiple times throughout the apprenticeship. These participants were interviewed every two weeks during the experience for a total of three interviews from each All interviews were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Semi structured interview protocols for the t hree interviews are located in A ppendix C. The
149 purp ose of the ISS perceptions of the apprenticeship experience itself in the laboratory setting and its influencing factors on their conceptions of NOS. The questions on the protocols were d esigned to be open open ended, non judgmental questions, you encourage unanticipated statements and however, previous research (Burg in et al., 2011) guided the design of some questions in order to specifically elicit student perspectives about the collaboration experienced in the laboratory (including conversations between the participant and their mentor), their interest in their rese arch, their epistemic involvement in the design of their project and their self positioning as a research er in the laboratory. The four experiential factors mentioned above were selected for specific investigation in that they might possibly be related to the development of NOS ideas in the context of authentic experiences in science (Burgin et al., 2011; Ryder & Leach, 1999). The tension between structuring the interview in order to steer the conversation down intended paths and allowing it to flow accordi ng to the direction initiated by the participants is one that is inherent to grounded intensive interviewing are open ended but directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet f (Appendix C) utilized here were purposively designed, yet open to revision during the collection of data. For example, information gained from the participants during the first interview was used to shape and modify the questions on the second interview protocol.
150 Observational data were also a key component of constructing the case study reports. The six case study participants were observed once a week for six weeks in their la boratory settings. Spradley (1980) refers to the ethnographic researcher conducting observations as a participant observer. He then classifies these observations along a continuum of participation ranging from nonparticipation to complete participation. Th e observations for this study were exemplary of passive observations (Spradley, 1980). In this type of observation, the participant observer does not take place in the normal activities of the culture that he or she is observing, but does form relationship s with those being observed through interviews and conversations. Appendix D contains the observational protocol that was used during the six weekly observations. Observations lasted approximately one hour each. The researcher took detailed field notes o f all laboratory activities and conversations during these observations. Similarly to the semi structured interview protocols, the observational protocol was intentionally designed to encourage the observer to be aware of instances indicative of certain ex periential factors within the laboratory setting that may be related ethnography [like the observational data to be collected in this study] gives priority to the studied phenom enon or process the researcher looked specifically for engagement on the part of the case study participant as scientific research was being conducted. This included instances of collaboration and epistemic involvement on the part of the participant. Additionally, the
1 51 resear cher looked for and recorded any and all nonverbal cues that may have indicated interest, involvement and positioning on the part of the case study participant. Finally, as with the interview protocols, the observation protocol was modified during initial data analysis to accoun t for emerging trends as data were being collected. In conclusion, survey data accompanied by inte rview and observational data were used to construct detailed pictures of six different participants in the AESP. Each of the participa nts represented a unique case in that some were working with another program participant, all experienced one of three different intervention seminars and all were placed in a unique laboratory setting with different mentor scientists. The rich stories tol d for the case study participants present an account of the multiple factors (including but not limited to the intervention seminars) and their influence on the development of participant NOS ideas. Lincoln and Guba (1985) summarize the merits of a case st udy approach best when they say: presenting a holistic and lifelike description that is like those that the readers normally encounter in their experiencing of the world, rather than being mere symboli c abstractions of such. Readers thus receive a measure of vicarious experience; were they to be magically set down in the context of the inquiry they would have a feeling of dj vu (p. 359) Mentor interviews One additional source of data that was collect ed warrants dis cussion in this section. That was the interviewing of the mentors of case study participants. The semi structured interview protocol that was used to collect information related to m entor perspect ives is found in A ppendix E. Shortly followin g the conclusion of the AESP, the mentors of the six case study participants were interviewed. This resulted in 12 interviews as each participant was mentored both by a science faculty member and a
152 graduate student working in their lab. The purpose of the interviews was to elicit mentor perspectives of the NOS idea changes that they believe d to have occurred among the participants placed in their laboratories and the factors that they believe d were influential in that developmental process. Mentor perspecti ves were used to lend some credibility to observational data and participant self reported interview data. Data Analysis ISS analysis The analysis of research question one and sub questions, in addition to at least part of the analysis of research questio n two and sub questions, required an interpretation of data obtained through two administrations of the ISS to the 30 participants in this study. Comparisons of responses on the survey given at the beginning of the research apprenticeship with those given at the end of the program allowed the researcher to make some claims regarding the changes in NOS understandings that occurred during the experience. It was these changes, which may or may not have represented positive gains in NOS understandings, which we re used to evaluate the effectiveness of the three different approaches under investigation in the first research question and sub questions. Additionally, in order to investigate the influencing factors on these NOS ideas for the case study participants, it was important to understand how their un derstandings changed over the seven week apprenticeship program The analysis of the participant responses to the survey was guided by the recommendations of the developers of the instrument (Lederman et al., 200 2). Student responses to the survey items were r ated as either nave, mixed, i nformed or unknown by the researcher in regard to the NOS aspect or aspects that were targeted by each
153 item. Such an analysis wa s representative of typological data analysis in t hat a priori categories were employ ed as surveys were analyzed (Hatch, 2002). It is worth m entioning here that the items on the ISS do not correspond directly with these NOS aspects in a one to one manner. From a quick perusal of the survey (Appendix B), o ne NOS aspects. Ra tings of either nave, mixed, informed or unknown were made based on the with or did not align wi th current consensus understandings of NOS by a variety of stakeholders in science education. The illustrative examples of questionnaire responses provided by the developers of the instrument helped guide the researcher through the analysis process (Lederm an et al., 2002). When assigning these ratings, the researcher made all efforts to keep the level of inference low. The survey was designed in such a way that the interpreter need not attempt to over analyze the responses of individual participants (Lederm an et al., 2002) when assigning ratings. A lengthy process was used to establish the trustworthiness of these ratings. First, a second interpreter who has worked with the researcher before in analyzing NOS survey data in the context of this program indepe ndently analyzed ten of the sixty surveys at random. An inter rater consistency of 64% was established and the raters discussed their disagreements. Due to this low percentage, a second round of analysis was conducted where the raters separately analyzed t en more surveys. This time, an inter rater consistency of 60% was established. The raters then discussed how they felt that this low level of consistency was due to force fitting the data from a questionnaire
154 designed to assess the Lederman et al. (2002) N epistemology schematic. The researcher then reexamined the Lederman et al. (2002) NOS themes and constructed a new coding rubric based on these aspects rather than epistemological themes. This new coding rubric is provided in A ppendix F. This coding rubric contains seven Lederman et al. (2002) aspects and one Sandoval (2005) aspect. The Sandoval aspect that remained was that scientific knowledge is constructed. A third round of analysis was conducted using this n ew rubric with the same ten surveys used in the second round and an inter rater consistency of 82.5% was calculated between the two raters. The raters then met to discuss and recognized some coding error. When this coding error was accounted for, the consi stency increased to 96.3%. This process helped the researcher to recognize the importance of a second set of eyes to reduce rater error and help build trustworthiness. As a result, a third rater, one of the co instructors of the explicit/reflective seminar along with the researcher independently rated each of the remaining fifty surveys. These two raters talked through any discrepancies and reached 100% consensus on their ratings for each of the surveys. Profiles of NOS ideas were then created for each st udent (n=30). The profiles display ed the rating (nave, mixed, i nformed or unknown ) for each Lederman et al. (2002) NOS aspect in addition to the Sandoval (2005) aspect that scientific knowledge is constructed at the beginning and at the end of the researc h apprenticeship experience as revealed through the questionnaire. Claims could then be made from an analysis of the profiles regarding the changes in participant NOS understandings that occurred during the experience.
155 Once these profiles were created, th e change in NOS ideas was examined according to categorical methods of statistical data analysis. First, a Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon Rank Sum analysis was used to test for any significant differences in changes in NOS ideas between the members of the differe nt intervention seminars. Secondly, a McNemar analysis was employed to account for which NOS aspects were showing significant changes for which intervention seminar. The decision to employ a McNemar analysis emerged during the data analysis process. Follow ing this categorical data analysis of the open ended science questionnaire, the same two researchers that conducted the majority of that analysis examined the survey interviews conducted with the six case study participants. The surveys were coded for each of the previously discussed NOS aspects and students were rated as having nave, informed unknown or a mixture of views regarding each. Such an analysis can be regarded as a typological data analysis of interview data (Hatch, 2002) as coding categories h ad been previously identified. The two researchers analyzed four of twelve total pre and post survey interviews with the six case study participants independently. The consistency between their ratings was established to be 97%. The first researcher then i ndependently analyzed the remaining eight survey interviews. Comparisons were then made between the NOS understandings of the case study participants as revealed on the written surveys and as revealed through the survey interviews. Application of construc tivist grounded theory The second research question was investigated primarily through an application of a constructivist grounded theory approach to data analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Through this approach, emergent theories were co constructed by researcher s and participants
156 conceptual categories [in constructivist grounded theory] arise through our interpretations of data rather than emanating from them or from our methodologic al practices. Thus, our theoretical analyses are interpretive renderings of a reality, not of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) that stand in stark contrast to the positivist notion of a single objective reality. The constructivist grounded theory approach was utilized to analyze the data collected with the six case study participants in an effort to understand influencing fact ors on their NOS understandings The first step of the process involved initial coding of the first semi structured interviews and observations conducted with the six case study participants. All coding for this study was done using the software program HyperRESEARCH. This initial codin g was guided by a hybrid use of typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) and the methods recommended by Charmaz (2006). According to Hatch groups based on predetermined typo typologies that were employed in this study included insider/outsider feelings, relationships in the lab, collaboration, co mfort in the laboratory setting, epistemic value. An application of constructivist initial coding was used in addition to the typological c oding described above to al low for additional emergent codes that described factors that may have influenced participant NOS understandings. Initial
157 coding in constructivist grounded theory does not arise from predetermined categories but rather emerges from the data. A hybrid use o f typological analysis and constructivist initial coding does not seem to conflict with the description of coding given by Charmaz ended yet (Charmaz, 2006, p. 48). The initial coding guiding the analysis of interview data occurred line by line from the verbatim transcriptions of those data sources, whereas the initial coding of the observation field notes was incident to incident as determined by the researcher. In vivo codes (the use of participant language to determine the naming of codes) were used wherever applicable. They were used when they provided a unique and/or rich description of the data in question. This process resulted in 188 ini tial codes. Once initial coding was completed, a second round of focused coding further refined the categories that were emerging in addition to those that were predetermined. During this process only the relevant initial codes remained as redundant or ir relevant codes were deleted. The categories directly related to the factors that both the researcher and the participants believed to be influencing participant NOS understandings. The result was 121 focused codes. This process relied on the constant compa rative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) where codes were compared both across multiple participants and within multiple data sources from the same participant. Throughout the analysis, the researcher recorded detailed memos outlining the initial and focused coding processes A final stage of theoretical coding was conducted in which focused codes were organized into related themes or theoretical codes. Three main theoretical codes
158 emerged from this analysis. These codes were authentic action, being treated authentically and feelings of authenticity Example codes from each of these three phases of the constructivist grounded theory coding process can be found in T able 3 6. Following an initial analysis of the first interviews and observations, theoretical sa mpling was conducted. Theoretical sampling is a process of purposeful data collection based on the emergent understandings from the early stages of constructivist grounded theory analysis. In this study, preliminary results from the first interviews and ob servations were used to modify subsequent interview protocols in order to collect further data on NOS influencing factors that were beginning to emerge. The theoretical sampling described here very much coincides with notions of emergent design that typify naturalistic inquiries of this sort (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The end result of the constructivist grounded theory was an i nterpretive theory that accounted for the data collected and provided an answer to the question s guiding the theory calls for the imaginative understanding of the studied phenomenon. This type of theory assumes emergent, multiple realities; indeterminacy; 2006, p. 126). The emergent theory achieved through this study described the influencing factors emerged through co constructed multiple realities that took into account the perspectives and valu es of both the participants and the researcher. Criteria for Trustworthiness Lincoln and Guba (1985) discuss the importance of establishing trustworthiness in the results of naturalistic inquiries. They describe a number of criteria for establishing this trustworthiness. These are the credibility, transferability, dependability and
159 confirmability of naturalistic inquiry findings. The criteria are used to persuade the reader of the value of findings. Charmaz (2006) has a very similar list of criteria for u se in constructivist grounded theory in establishing trustworthiness. Since much of the analysis of research question two relied on the methods of constructivist grounded theory, these criteria were used for this study. This list includes the credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness of the findings. Each of these criteria will now be discussed in turn. Credibility The credibility of this research study is based largely upon the quantity and quality of the data from which understandings emerged. Th e data collected were very detailed and revealed a rich picture of the research apprenticeship program and the various laboratory settings within it. The emergent categories covered wide ranges of data and demonstrated that a redundancy in sampling (Lincol n & Guba, 1985) had been reached. All claims were logically linked to the data in such a way that an independent reader would likely reach the same conclusions as the researcher. Additionally, the use of assessment items from a previously validated open en ded instrument (the VNOS D+) when making claims about NOS idea changes that occurred during the program, lent a greater amount of credibility to such claims than would have an over reliance on self reported interview data to establish participant NOS under standings. Originality This research is truly original in that it offers new insights into the factors that influence participant NOS ideas in the context of a research apprenticeship program. Such a systematic comparison of various approaches to NOS teac hing and learning had yet to be conducted in this setting and therefore resulted in original understandings.
160 This work has significance from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. Theoretically, this research challenges the current understandings of the power of authenticity in influencing NOS understandings through an implicit approach. Practically, the emergent influencing factors have the potential to inform the design of future research apprenticeship experiences in novel ways. Resonance This research revealed taken for granted meanings within the research appr enticeship experience. Links were made between the larger research apprenticeship program and the seminar interventions and individual laboratory experiences within it. Importantly, the meanings and links resonate d with the participants of this study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue that the outcomes of a naturalistic inquiry should be negotiated between the participants and the researcher both throughout the inquiry and upon its conclusion Throughout this inquiry, member checking was conducted with the case study participants in a few different ways. First, during the early rounds of interviews and observations, the case study participants were asked for clarification of responses and were asked if they agreed with the initial interpretations of the researcher. Finally, upon completion of the data analysis, the six case study participants and their mentors were provided with an overview of the results in order to check for agreement and tha them. Usefulness The results of this research are useful in a number of ways. First, the interpretation of the data is informative to the designers of this specific research apprenticeship program. Results offer suggestions for ideal laboratory placements and seminar
161 interventions aimed at influencing participant NOS ideas. Secondly, the results contribute to an understanding of the various teaching and learning approaches and factors that influence learner NOS ideas in authentic science contexts. Such knowledge is currently limited in the science education literature base (Chapter 2). Thirdly, the results of the research are useful in that future research questions were constructed regarding specific influen tial factors on NOS ideas in the context of research apprenticeship experiences. Finally, the results hold some implications for formal school science. Namely, they offer some explanation for why an implicit approach seems to be so ineffective in influence learner NOS ideas in an inauthentic context (Chapter 2). What results is a rationale for the inclusion of more highly authentic experiences in formal school science. Subjectivity Statement aturalistic inquiries. From their perspective, all inquiry is value bound rather than value free. They discuss how the values of the researcher influence all aspects of the design of a naturalistic inquiry from the shaping of a problem to the choice of par adigm and substantive theory guiding the data collection and analysis. Related to this is the utilization of tacit knowledge as a characteristic of naturalistic inquiry ( Table 3 1). Peshkin (1988) refers to the above as the subjectivity of the researcher a nd recommends that all naturalistic inquirers explicitly identify their values prior to conducting a research study. This is because the personal qualities that make up a true, (Peshkin, 1988, p. 17). For this reason, the drafting of a subjectivity statement by the
162 1988, p.20). I will now attempt to unburden myself as I discuss the values that I brought to this research study. The discussion will be organized into three parts; my views regarding the participants in this study, my beliefs about authenticity in school science and my understandings of the research apprenticeship program. I brought with me to this study my values regarding the students that were p articipants. In view of my experiences as a high school chemistry teacher of advanced upper level secondary students I had pre conceived notions of the type of student that would volunteer for participation in this study. I believed that these participants would be highly gifted, motivated and highly achieving students. I believed that they would have had a great deal of parental support throughout their educational career thus far. I believed that they would have highly sophisticated understandings of scie ntific content knowledge. That being said, I believed that, in general, their understandings of NOS would be rather nave as they entered the research apprenticeship experience. I thought that they would hold the perspective that scientific knowledge is di scovered rather than socially constructed by a community of scientists. I believed that they would hold on to the myth of the scientific method as being the only way to conduct scientific investigations. I also believed that many of them would believe in a hierarchical relationship between various forms of scientific knowledge. Finally I believed that they would have understandings that scientific knowledge is absolute and unchanging. These beliefs are backed by the NOS literature (Lederman, 1992; 2007). My subjectivity ISS
163 I also had values regarding the levels of authenticity in both school science and research apprenticeship experiences. In my experiences as a high school chemistry teacher and as a h igh school student myself, I witnessed first hand how inauthentic school science inquiries can be. The instructor often tightly controls these experiences. Questions and protocols are provided to students as they attempt to verify scientific content that they have previously encountered. Very rarely are students provided with opportunities to explore their own questions and answer them through creative ways in open ended inquiry experiences in school settings. This is con trasted with the highly canonically authentic experiences that I believe are provided to students through research apprenticeship experiences where the data th at they collect and interpret are valuable to the scientific community. Finally, I have personal experiences with this particular research apprenticeship program that have influenced the design of this study and the data collection and analysis procedures that I employed. Over the past four summers, I have been investigating the AESP and have publish ed research reports regarding the experiential factors and related outcomes of participation in it (Burgin et al., 2011). I believed that the most important aspects of this experience were collaboration in a laboratory community and interest in the researc h project itself. I also did not think that epistemic involvement was as important as other researchers believe it to be in impacting participant NOS ideas (e.g. Ryder & Leach, 1999). I have therefore designed this study to allow for further investigation of these constructs while at the same time allowing for additional experiential factors to emerge. Additionally, I believed that by participating in
164 highly authentic forms of scientific inquiry, student understandings of NOS had the potential to be impacte d through an implicit approach. The above subjectivity statement discloses my values that may have impacted this research project from its design and initiation to completion. I agree with Lincoln and Guba (1985) that the main instrument in a naturalistic inquiry is the human instrument and that my values outlined above interacted with those of the participants as knowledge was co created. The interpretative theory (Charmaz, 2006) that resulted from this research study was likely influenced by my personal perspectives. I therefore do not shy away from my personal values, but rather acknowledge them, embrace them and account for them. Summary This study sought to investigate the development of participant perspectives of NOS ideas as an outcome of an authent ic scientific research experience and the factors that may have influenced those ideas Influencing factors could have included various levels of supported participati on in content seminars that took different approaches to the teaching and learning of NOS The different approaches investigated here were the implicit approach, the reflective approach and the explicit/reflective approach. Additionally, this study was designed to allow for additional influencing factors to be identified that were present in t he experience outside of the seminar settings. The design of data collection and analysis procedures for this study was informed by a naturalistic inquiry paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As such, qualitative methodologies were employed. Participants of th ree different seminars responded to an open ended questionnaire (the ISS) at the beginning and the end of their experience. Their responses were labeled as being representative of either nave, informed
165 unknown or a mixture of understandings of various NO S aspects. Initial NOS understandings that emerged from analysis of the questionnaire responses were used to purposively select six case study participants. The case study participants were systematically interviewed and observed in their natural laborator y setting. Through an application of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) a highly detailed description of the experiences of the case study participants was constructed. From these descriptions emerged an understanding of the various influencing factors on the The results of this study are useful in that they extend the knowledge base related to how NOS ideas are influenced in the context of research apprenticeships. The resulting understand ings will inform the future design of seminars and the identification of ideal laboratory placements for this particular research apprenticeship experience. Additionally, the findings inform the development of other research apprenticeship programs. Finall y, an examination of the impact of participation in authentic science on holds impli cations for school settings. It provide s evidence for why an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning in formal settings seems to be ineffective ( e.g. Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002) and further provide s a rationale for including more authentic forms of scientific inquiry in the context of school science.
166 Table 3 1. Characteristics of naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) Characteristic Exam ple (s) from current research study Natural setting Study conducted in the context of a research apprenticeship program and attempts to take into account multiple influencing factors on participants NOS ideas in that setting. Human instrument Semi structu red interviews with case study participants allow for the exploration of unexpected responses. Ethnographic observations of participants engagement in Tacit knowledge The researcher has experience investigating this apprenticeship pr ogram and therefore the intuitive knowledge and values of the researcher will be taken into account. Qualitative methods Methodology employed includes open ended questionnaires, interviews, and observation field notes as sources of data. Purposive sampli ng Participants and sampling based on both informational purposes and the achievement of redundancy. i.e. Number of follow up interviews and case study participants Inductive data analysis Interview transcripts and observational field notes will be coded through use of a constant and comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) Grounded theory Application of constructivist grounded theory in answering r esearch questions (Charmaz, 2006 ) Emergent design Observational field notes will be allowed to inform t he design of semi structured interview protocols. Negotiated outcomes Follow up interviews based on open ended questionnaire responses. Follow up interviews with mentors. Member checking with case study participants throughout and upon completion of the research apprenticeship program. Case study reporting mode Reporting of findings from three case study participants in a case reporting format Idiographic interpretation Interpretations will be made based on the individual factors of particular cases in cluding the values of the researcher and the relationships between the researcher and the participants. Tentative application The study will have limited implications regarding the potential transferability of these results to the contexts of other resear ch apprenticeship programs. Focus determined boundaries The factors that influence participant understandings of NOS in the context of research apprenticeship programs (a focus of this study) will be bounded by their emergence during data collection. Sp ecial criteria for trustworthiness A substitute criterion for internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity will be used to establish trustworthiness for this study.
167 Table 3 2. Case study p articipants Participant Gender Ethnicity Paired Se minar Discipline Research Project Title 3. Jennifer F White Yes E/R Biology Evolutionary Development of Epiascidiate Leaves in Nepenthese alata 4. Jane F Asian Indian No E/R Chemistry Finding Amino Acid, Nonribosomal Protein Synthetase Combinations *15. Isabel F Hispanic Yes R Forest Pathology Location of Raffaelea Lauricola in Redbay trees 18. Joseph M African American No R Materials Engineering Self assembly of Silica Particle Monolayers using the Langmuir Blodgett Metho d at Lower Temperature *24. John M Hispanic Yes I Biology Different Nest Architecture Results in Changes in Interactions Between Parents but not Parental Care 27. Tom M Hispanic No I Chemistry SPREE Analysis of Protein Lipid Interactions as a Function o f pH Participant: Scholarship Recipient (*) Paired: Working with another program participant in the same laboratory placement Seminar Enrollment: Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (I)
168 Table 3 3. NOS i nterventions Tim e frame Interventions Participants Weeks 1 7 Research Apprenticeship Experience All participants from all seminars (n=30) Weeks 2 6 Reflective writings (Responses to journal prompts. Appendix A) All participants from reflective and explicit/reflective se minars (n=20) Weeks 2 6 Explicit NOS activities with reflective discussions (Table 3 3) All participants from explicit/reflective seminar (n=11)
169 Table 3 4. Explicit NOS activities and targeted NOS aspects used in the explicit/r eflective seminar NOS activity Description Target NOS aspect(s) (Sandoval, 2005) NOS card sort (Cobern & Loving, 1998) Groups of students are given a set of cards with NOS statements on them. They then refine this set through a series of trades to arrive at a group of cards that is representative of their perspectives. Construction of scientific knowledge, the diversity of scientific methods, the different forms of scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge varies in certainty Pictures (Young? Old?; Duck? Rabbit?; The aging president) (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) Students look at pictures that have multiple interpretations and describe what they see. Construction of scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge varies in certainty The cube activity (Led erman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) Students are given a cube and have to guess what is on the bottom of the cube without looking at it based on patterns that they observe. Construction of scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge varies in certainty Black box activities (The tube; The water making machine) (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) Students have to form hypothesis and perform experiments to inquire about the inner workings of mysterious devices and develop models that account for their observations. T he different forms of scientific knowledge Tricky tracks (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) Students observe a set of animal tracks from a zoomed in perspective. The vantage point widens to reveal more data during the activity. They develop interpretive stories to account for the patterns they observe. Scientific knowledge varies in certainty The hole picture (Lederman & Abd El Khalick, 1998) Students have to figure out the color and shape of cut outs in a manila folder by observing them through small holes in the folder. Diversity of scientific methods, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty
170 Table 3 4 Continued The check lab (Loundagin, 1999) Students are draw randomly from a set of checks and create a story to account for the data they encou nter. Diversity of scientific methods, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty
171 Table 3 5. Data collection and analysis phases during and immediately following the research apprenticeship experience Time frame Data collecti on/analysis Participants Week 1 ISS Pre survey All participants from all seminars (n=30) Week 2 Identification of case study participants based on ISS Pre survey ratings 2 participants from each seminar. Students with similar Pre rating and with room f or growth (n=6) Week 2 Follow up Pre survey interviews Case study participants (n=6) Weeks 2 7 Observations/field notes and interviews Case study participants (n=6) Week 6 ISS Post survey All participants from all seminars (n=30) Week 7 Follow up Post survey interviews Case study participants (n=6) Post apprenticeship Mentor interviews Mentors (PI and Graduate students) of final case study participants (n=12) ISS, Ideas about Science Survey
172 Table 3 6 Examples of initial, focused and the oretical codes Examples of Codes Initial Codes Acceptance of ideas Analyzing data Apprentice contributions Apprentice given choice Belonging Calculating Collaboration Confidence Encountering challenges Epistemic involvement Errors Feelings about apprentice Implications of results Importance of project Independence Laboratory group meetings Learning from past experiments Trial and error Limited progress Mentor confidence in apprentice Modification of protocols Novelty of p roject Ownership of projec t Participating in research Positioning in the lab Pride Purpose of project Recording in laboratory notebook Role of evidence Satisfaction Scientific method experienced Scientist identity Set backs to research project Social interactions in lab Statistics Support to pursue science Unexpected results Using computers Value of apprentice Value of the project Focused Codes Grouped by Theme (Theoretical Codes) Authentic Action Being Treated Authentically Feelings of Authenticity Analyzing data Calcul ating Collaboration Encountering Challenges Epistemic involvement Laboratory group meetings experienced Learning from past experiments Participating in research Statistical analysis Trial and error Unexpected results Using computers Working on novel proje ct Accepting ideas of apprentice Confidence in apprentice Encouraging the apprentice Mentor availability Mentor positioning of the apprentice in the lab Mentor patience Positive feelings about apprentice Recognizing apprentice contributions Recognizing the value of the apprentice Social interactions in lab Belonging described Comfort felt Excitement of apprentice Importance of project explained Interest in project Ownership of project Positioning in the lab Pride Purpose of project understood Satisfaction described Scientist identity developed Value of the experience described
173 Figure 3 1. NOS teaching and learning interventions in the context of a research apprenticeship experience.
174 Figure 3 2. Data sources from which case studies are built
175 CHAPTER 4 CHANGES IN PARTICIPANT NOS IDEAS Introduction Prior to an investigation of the influencing factors on changes in NOS ideas it was important to have a robust picture of just what were the NOS ideas of t he participants of this study both at the beginning and at the end of the program and the ways in which these understandings had changed. Of additional import was an understanding of how changes in NOS ideas varied for participants experiencing the three d ifferent interventions implemented in this study. An overview of the findings related to participant changes in NOS ideas is presented in this chapter These results are both qualitative and quantitative in nature and presented in a series of tables contai ning participant written responses to the Ideas about Science Survey (ISS) and subsequent categorical data analysis of those responses. A comparison of the written survey responses with corresponding interviews regarding those responses for the six case st udy participants closes the chapter NOS Ideas Revealed through the ISS A majority of the data analyzed during the exploration of participant NOS ideas were written responses to the ISS ( Appendix B) given both at the beginning and again at the end of the Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP). Two independent raters analyzed the responses to these surveys by using a typological approach (Hatch, 2002) whereby a priori categories guided the analysis process. That is to say that the surveys were exa mined holistically for instances of nave, mixed, informed and unknown responses regarding eight different NOS aspects (Lederman et al., 2002; Sandoval, 2005). A coding rubric was created to help the raters through this analysis
176 process (Appendix F). This rubric contains descriptions of nave, mixed and informed responses for each targeted NOS aspect as well as which survey qu estions relate to which aspect (Lederman et al. 2002). Additionally, in order to keep levels of inference low, ratings of unknown wer e given when the researchers decided that not enough information was provided by the participant to adequately characterize his/her response. This unknown category was one that was not an original part of the research plan but emerged from the data An agr eement of 100% on all of the ratings for each participant was reached through a process of consensus building discussions between the two raters. This process was thoroughly described in Chapter 3. Before entering into a discussion of the pre experience NO S ideas, the post experience NOS ideas and the changes in NOS ideas for the participants in this study, representative written survey responses are presented for each NOS aspect. Table 4 1 contains these responses. Each example is identified as being eithe r from the pre survey or the post survey. An individual number identifies each participant. Since survey responses from the six case study participants will be discussed in Chapter 5, examples in T able 4 1 are all from non case study participants. Both a n ave example and an informed example are provided for each NOS aspect. Since most of the mixed responses contained elements of both a nave and an informed understanding, the decision was made not to include representative examples of mixed responses in th e table. Pre experience NOS Ideas All of the pre survey response ratings for all of the investigated NOS aspects are provided on T able 4 2 for each participant in the study. An individual number identifies participants and an asterisk further identifies c ase study participants. Participants are
177 further divided into three intervention groups based on the seminar in which they were enrolled A quick examination of this table reveals that at the beginning of the experience, participant understandings of the d istinction between theories and laws as different forms of scientific knowledge, and the myth of the scientific method were the least informed with 73% and 57% of all of the responses rated nave respectively. Participant understandings of the empirical na ture of scientific knowledge and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge were the most informed with only 10% and 7% of all of the responses rate nave respectively. Prior views regarding the creativity involved in conducting scientific research, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge, the social embedded nature of scientific knowledge and that scientific knowledge is constructed rather than discovered were more varied in that a balanced mixture of nave, informed and mixed views permeated all o f the ratings for all of the participants regardless of the seminar in which they were enroll ed This uniformity between prior NOS views between different intervention groups will be addressed in a separate discussion. Post experience NOS Ideas All of the post survey response ratings for all of the investigat ed NOS aspects are provided on T able 4 3 for each participant in the study. At the end of the experience, participant understandings of the distinction between theory and law were still the most nave, but now only 57% of the responses were nave compared with the 73% of responses being rated nave for this aspect at the beginning of the experience. At the end of the experience only 30% of the responses related to the myth of the scientific method were rated nave. At the beginning of the experience, 57% of the same responses were rated nave. It is clear from an examination of the pre and post ratings
178 of these two NOS aspects that participant understandings were being positively impacted to a certain de gree over the course of the program. What remains uncertain is an understanding of whether or not certain intervention seminars were more effective at influencing this change than were others. Changes in NOS Ideas Table 4 4 provides a visualization of the changes in NOS ideas by aspect and by participant. On the table, not only are positive changes represented, b ut negative changes in NOS ideas are represented as well. Participants in the explicit/reflective seminar exhibited more positive changes in NOS u nderstandings than did participants in either of the other two seminars. Positive changes in understandings of a single NOS aspect occurred 32 times for the participants of this seminar. In comparison, there were 11 instances of positive changes in NOS und erstandings for the members of the reflective seminar and nine instances of positive changes in NOS understandings for the members of the implicit seminar. Additionally, the understandings of NOS ideas decreased in their level of sophistication only three times for the participants of the explicit/reflective seminar. Such decreases in understandings of NOS ideas occurred 10 times among the members of the reflective seminar, and 15 times for the members of the implicit seminar. It is apparent from these resu lts that differences in c hanges of NOS understandings were clearly present between the three different intervention groups. It is also evident that understandings of the differences between scientific theories and laws as forms of scientific knowledge, the social cultural embeddedness of science and the m yth of the scientific method were the NOS aspects with the greatest instances of positive change among the members of the explicit/reflective seminar.
179 However, questions still remain about these results. A re the changes in NOS understandings significantly different from each other for the three different intervention groups? Do certain NOS aspects exhibit more significant changes for certain intervention groups than do other NOS aspects? This last question was not one that was included in the research questions that guided the design of this study. Rather, the question emerged during the analysis of the written survey responses at the end of the program. It was quite evident to the researchers that participa nt understandings of certain NOS aspects were exhibiting more changes than were others. Categorical data analysis techniques were applied in order to explore the significance of the changes in NOS understandings exhibited by the members of the three differ ent seminars and to examine whether or not some NOS aspects were being impacted in more significant ways than were others. In the sections that follow, results of statistical analyses of the qualitative ratings attributed to participant responses to the wr itten science survey are discussed. Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon Rank Sum Analysis Results A Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to determine if there were any significant differences (p<0.05) between the NOS ideas at the beginning of the experience the NOS ideas at the end of the experience and the changes in NOS ideas among the participants of the three different intervention seminars. A 95% confidence interval was used when discussin g significance due to the small sample sizes in this study. The results o f this analysis can be seen in T able 4 5. For the purposes of running such an analysis, all unknown NOS ratings were removed for each participant. Ratings were then assigned a numerical score. A score of one was given to any nave ratings, a score of two was given to any mixture ratings and a score of three was given to any
180 informed ratings. In this way, all participants could be assigned a composite score for both their pre and their post surveys. These scores could then be compared in a variety o f ways. When all of the pre survey responses were compared, there was no significant difference in the scores between the average pre survey score for the three different intervention groups. Such a result indicates that the participants were entering the authentic research program with similar prior conceptions about NOS. However, a comparison of the post survey response ratings and the changes in survey response ratings pre to post experience revealed significant differences between the three intervention groups. The differences between pre survey and post survey responses for each seminar were then compared to those differences for both of the other two intervention seminars. It was revealed that as a whole this difference for the explicit/reflective semi nar was significantly different from both the reflective and the implicit seminar difference scores. The pre to post difference scores for implicit and the reflective seminars were not significantly different from each other. This result indicates that the change in NOS ideas exhibited by the members of the explicit/reflective group was significantly different form the change in NOS ideas exhibited by the members of both the implicit and the reflective seminars. Additionally the change in NOS ideas exhibite d by the members of the implicit seminar was not significantly different fro m the change in NOS ideas exhibited by the members of the reflective seminar. McNemar Analysis Results The McNemar significance of change test was used to determine if the desired changes in participant understandings of the targeted NOS aspects were significant (p<0.05) for the members of the three different intervention groups. The result s of this test are provided in T able 4 6. In the table, some statistics are not available. Abs ent
181 statistics occurred when the NOS ratings were identical before and after the experience. was unable to be calculated due to small cell sizes. The only intervention group that exhibited significant changes in NOS understandings was the explicit/reflective seminar, and these changes were only regarding understandings of the distinctions between theories and laws and the myth of the scientific method. While not statisti cally significant, it should be noted that understandings of the social embedded nature of scientific knowledge exhibited a trend (p=0.0588) toward more sophisticated understandings for the members of the explicit/reflective seminar. Limitations of Writte n Survey Results Before moving on, it is worth mentioning some of the limitations to the use of a statistical analysis of the open ended ISS as the only means of measuring change in NOS ideas for the participants of this study. Instances of Reflective and Implicit change An overreliance on the results of the categorical analysis of the written survey data could result in an interpretation that NOS ideas were not impacted for the members of either the reflective or the implicit seminars. However, this was n ot the case (Table 4 4). While the only statistically significant whole group changes in NOS ideas occurred for the explicit/reflective group, there were instances of individual positive and negative changes in NOS understandings within both the reflective and the implicit groups. Fortuitously some of these participants happened to be case study participants. For them, a number of other data sources including interviews and observations gave insight into possible influencing factors related to the positive changes in their NOS ideas. Unfortunately, these additional data sources were only available for case study
182 participants who were selected early in the data collection phase of the research study. As a result, no information is available to account for fac tors that may have negatively influenced the NOS ideas of the participants who exhibited such negative change as none of them were case study participants Mismatch between Written Survey Responses and Survey Interview Data The six case study participants were interviewed about their written responses following both administrations of the ISS During these interviews, participants were provided with the original copy of their survey containing their written responses and asked to elaborate on what they mean t by what they wrote. Additional questions were also asked and are foun d in the interview protocol in A ppendix B. These interviews were transcribed and then coded according to relevant NOS aspects. Interviews were then rated in the same way as were the wri tten responses. Table 4 7 shows the comparison between the written survey data and the interview data for the first administration of the ideas about science survey for the six case study participants. The consistency between the ratings given to these two data sources was 79.2%. Many unknown ratings given to written science survey responses were clarified during the interview process. Such a change in rating from unknown to known was not described as being inconsistent. Inconsistencies in this table are ma rked with an asterisk. Table 4 8 displays the same information regarding the consistency between the written responses and the interview responses regarding the second administration of the ideas about science survey. Here, the c onsistency was 81.3%. Final ly, T able 4 9 shows the comparison between the pre to post change in NOS ideas revealed through the written survey responses and the science survey interview data. The consistency between these changes was 79.2%. Th is table differs slightly from T able 4 4 in that it displays unknown changes in NOS
183 experience view regarding a NOS aspect was rated as being unknown, but their post experience view regarding that same aspect was rated as being informed, their change in un derstanding of this NOS aspect would have been unknown. When case study participants were interviewed, many of these unknown changes were clarified. The mismatch between ratings given to written survey responses and those given to survey interview respons es indicates that what participants wrote did not always fully explain their NOS perspectives. A participant may have written something that was rather nave, but as they were provided with an opportunity to discuss what they actually meant, at times they would elaborate and supplement their written response with more informed NOS ideas. Thus a nave written response in this instance would have been paired with a mixed rating for the survey interview response. For this reason, interview data were prioritize d over written survey data when discussing the NOS ideas of the case study participants. Conclusion In summary, the use of written survey data revealed significant overall positive group changes in understandings of the distinction between theory and law a nd of the myth of the scientific method for the members of the explicit/reflective seminar. Understandings of the social cultural embeddedness of scientific knowledge for this group as a whole trended towards positive changes. However, there were individua l exceptions where members of both the reflective and the implicit seminars exhibited positive and negative cha nges in certain NOS aspects. The s e findings reveal the power of implicit messages to impact NOS understandings both for the good and for the bad. With the six case study participants, survey interviews revealed some inconsistencies
184 between the ratings of their written responses and the ratings applied to their interview transcripts. Such findings speak to the limitations of the use of written open ended questionnaires as the sole means of assessing NOS understandings.
185 Table 4 1. Examples of written science survey responses and r atings NOS Aspect Nave example Informed example Empirical When asked why scientists disagree ab out dinosaur have scientific proof or remains Pre Survey) When asked why scientists disagree (Participant 22, Post Survey) Theory/Law established as a possibility, but not fact. Scientific law is (Participant 28, Post Survey) governs our existence and cannot (okay, should not) be broken; whereas a scientific theory is a well tested and proven explanation of how a scientific Pre Survey) Creative experiment you should just mark what you see, no creativit (Participant 9, Pre Survey) discussion of the results are probably the most common parts of a scientific (Participant 2, Post Survey) Subjective It draws from data that is collected under controlled conditions. This is unlike subjective disciplines, in which much can (Participant 5, Pre Survey) and beliefs of scientists cause them to leap to differing conclusions about 1, Post Survey) Social embeddedness of the bases of science, Post Survey) ne ed. The needs of certain cultures are different from others. So yes, science can reflect social and cultural Survey) Tentative not change later on unless the universe changes along with scienc Survey) When asked if scientific knowledge may permanent, especially science. For example, at one point we believed in a geocentric universe when in fact the earth actually revolves around the Survey) Myth of the Scientific Method When asked if all scientists used be completely sure of a set 29, Post Survey) stat e problem, research, hypothesis, experiment, collect data, analyze and form conclusion. I believe this is wrong. There is no one way to (Participant 25, Pre Survey) Constructed discovered. T he answers to the questions are found through experimentation and research (Participant 12, Post Survey) based upon a foundation set by Survey)
186 Table 4 2. Participant pre NOS understandings by aspect as revealed on written science s urveys Sem. Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. E/R 1 I I I I M I N M E/R 2 M N I U I I M M E/R 3 M N I M I M I N E/R 4 M N N N N I N N E/R 5 I N M N N I N N E/R 6 N N N N N N N I E/R 7 I N N M N I N M E/R 8 M N I I M M I N E/R 9 M N N U U M N N E/R 10 I N I I M I I M E/R 11 I I N N N M N N R 12 N N N N N I N N R 13 M N I U I U M M R 14 M N N U N N M N R 15 I N N U N M M M R 16 I N I I N M N N R 1 7 I N N N N I N I R 18 I U I I M I N N R 19 I N N I N I M N R 20 I I I U M I I I Im 21 I U I M N I M M Im 22 M N I I M I N I Im 23 I I I M I I N I Im 24 M N I U I U I N Im 25 M N N M M I I M Im 26 M U I I I I I M Im 27 M U N I N I N I Im 28 N N N U N I N N Im 29 I N I M I I N N Im 30 I N U I I I N U Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (Im); Participant (Part.), Case study participant (*); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L), Creative (Cre.), Su bjective (Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc.), Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); NOS Ratings: Unknown (U), Nave (N), Mixture (M), Informed (I)
187 Table 4 3. Participant post NOS understandings by aspect as reveale d on written science s urveys Sem. Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. E/R 1 I I I I I I I M E/R 2 M M I M N I M N E/R 3 I N I I I I I N E/R 4 I U I M I I I N E/R 5 I I M M I I I N E/R 6 N U I U I M M N E/R 7 I I M U N I I M E/R 8 M I I I I I I M E/R 9 M I N N N M M N E/R 10 I N I I M I I M E/R 11 I I N I I M M M R 12 M N I U N I N N R 13 I N I U U M N M R 14 M N M I U I I N R 15 I N I I N I M M R 16 I N N I N I N U R 17 M N N N N M N M R 18 I N I I U I I N R 19 M N N I M I N M R 20 I U I M N I M M Im 21 I U I I I I N N Im 22 I N I I N I M M Im 23 I N I M I I N N Im 24 M N I U U I I N Im 25 M N I N N I I M Im 26 M U I I M I I N Im 27 M U N I N M N M Im 28 M N I I N I I N Im 29 I N I U U M N N Im 30 M N I I M I M M Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (I); Participant (Part.), Case study participant (*); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L), Creative (Cre.), Subjective (Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc.), Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); NOS Ratings: Unknown (U), Nave (N), Mixture (M), Informed (I)
188 Table 4 4. Participant known c hang es in NOS understandings by aspect as revealed on written science s urveys Sem. Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. E/R 1 + + E/R 2 + E/R 3 + + + E/R 4 + + + + + E/R 5 + + + + E/R 6 + + + + E/R 7 + + + E/R 8 + + + + E/R 9 + + E/R 10 E/R 11 + + + + R 12 + + R 13 + R 14 + + R 15 + + R 16 + R 17 R 18 + R 19 + + R 20 Im 21 + + Im 22 + + Im 23 Im 24 Im 25 + Im 26 Im 27 Im 28 + + + Im 29 Im 30 + Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (Im); Participant (Part.), Case study participant (*); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L), Creative (Cre.), Subjective ( Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc.), Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); Change in NOS Understandings: Positive change (+), Negative change ( )
189 Table 4 5. Kruskal Wallis/Wilcoxon Rank Sum analysis of science surve y d ata Description of Test Chi Square d.f. p Pre Survey. Comparison of All Seminars 1.6792 2 0.4319 Post Survey. Comparison of All Seminars 7.7266 2 0.0210* Pre Survey to Post Survey Differences. Comparison of All Seminars 6.8424 2 0.0 327* Pre Survey to Post Survey Differences. Comparison of Explicit/Reflective and Reflective Seminars 4.2558 1 0.0391* Pre Survey to Post Survey Differences. Comparison of Explicit/Reflective and Implicit Seminars 5.4891 1 0.0191 Pre Survey to Post Survey Differ ences. Comparison of Reflective and Implicit Seminars 0.1370 1 0.7112 Degrees of Freedom (d.f.). Significant p value (*)
190 Table 4 6. McNemar a nalysi s of science survey d ata Aspect Seminar Statistic (S) d.f. p Empirical Explicit/Reflective 2.0000 1 0.1573 Reflective 0.3333 1 0.5637 Implicit 0.0000 1 1.0000 Theory/Law Explicit/Reflective 4.0000 1 0.0455* Reflective N/A N/A N/A Implicit N/A N/A N/A Creative Explicit/Reflective 2.0000 1 0.1573 Reflective 0.3333 1 0.5637 Implicit 2.0000 1 0.1573 Subjective Explicit/Reflective 2.0000 1 0.1573 Reflective None 1 None Implicit 1.0000 1 0.3173 Social Embed Explicit/Reflective 3.5714 1 0.0588 (trend) Reflective N/A N/A N/A Implicit 0.3333 1 0.5637 Tentative Explicit/Reflective 2.0000 1 0.1573 Reflective 1.0000 1 0.3173 Implicit N/A N/A N/A Myth of Method Explicit/Reflective 4.0000 1 0.0455* Reflective 0.3333 1 0.5637 Implicit 1.0000 1 0.3173 Degrees of Freedom (d.f.). Significant p value (*). Statistic Not Available ( N/A).
191 Table 4 7 Cas e study pre NOS u nderstandings. Comparison of w ritten surveys with survey i nterviews. Sem Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. Written Survey Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer M N I M I M I N E/R 4 Jane M N N N N I N N R 15 Isabel I N N U N M M M R 18 Joseph I U I I M I N N Im 24 Tom M N I U I U I N Im 27 John M U N I N I N I Survey Interview Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer M N I M I M *M N E/R 4 Jane U N N N *M *M N N R 15 Isabel U N N M *M M *N M R 18 Joseph I N *N *M M I N N Im 24 Tom M N I I *M I I N Im 27 John M N N U N *M N *M Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (Im); Participant (Part.); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L), Creative (Cre.), Subjective (Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc)., Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); NOS Ratings: Unknown (U), Nave (N), Mixture (M), Informed (I); Interview Rating Inconsistent with Rating of Written Survey R esponse (*)
192 Table 4 8. Case study p ost NOS u nderstandings. Comparison of w ritten surveys with survey i nterviews. Sem. Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. Written Survey Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer I N I I I I I N E/R 4 Jane I U I M I I I N R 15 Isabel I N I I N I M M R 18 Joseph I N I I U I I N Im 24 Tom M N I U U I I N Im 27 John M U N I N M N M Survey Interview Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer I N I I I *M I N E/R 4 Jane I I I M I I *M N R 1 5 Isabel I N I I *M I *N M R 18 Joseph I N I I M I I N Im 24 Tom *I N I I M I I N Im 27 John *I N *I I *M *I N U Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (Im); Participant (Part.); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law ( T/L), Creative (Cre.), Subjective (Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc)., Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); NOS Ratings: Unknown (U), Nave (N), Mixture (M), Informed (I); Interview Rating Inconsistent with Rating of W ritten Survey Response (*)
193 Table 4 9. Case s tudy c hange s in NOS u nderstandings. Comparison of w ritten surveys with survey interviews Sem. Part. Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Const. Written Survey Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer + + + E/R 4 Jane + U + + + + R 15 Isabel + U + R 18 Joseph U U + Im 24 Tom U U U Im 27 John U Survey Interview Response Ratings E/R 3 Jennifer + + *+ E/R 4 Jane U + + + + *+ + R 15 Isabel U + + + R 18 Joseph *+ *+ + Im 24 Tom *+ Im 27 John *+ *+ U *+ *+ U Seminar (Sem.): Explicit/Reflective (E/R), Reflective (R), Implicit (Im); Participant (Part.); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L), Creative (Cre.), Subject ive (Sub.), Social Embedded (Soc)., Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.), Constructed (Const.); Change in NOS Understandings: Unknown Change (U), Positive Change (+), Negative Change ( ); Interview Rating Change Inconsistent with Rating of Written Survey Response Change (*)
194 CHAPTER 5 FACTORS INFLUENCING CHANGES IN PARTICIPA NT NOS IDEAS Introduction An identification and discussion of the influencing factors that were tied to changes in NOS idea s for the six case study participants is presented in this chapter. The chapter is wholly qualitative in nature and is organized into six separate stories, one for each case study participant. Representative quotes and incidents from interview and observational data permeate each case study story. Within these stories, a system of abbreviations has been used to identify the data source that each specific piece of evidence came fro m. This system is described in T able 5 1. Also included in this chapter is the constructed theory that accounts for the sources that led to NOS changes among participants. Theoretical Codes Prior to the individual case study reports, it is important to give a brief description ese three theoretical codes are authentic action, being treated authentically and feelings of authenticity. They emerged from an application of constructivist grounded theory as an analysis technique (Charmaz, 2006). Through a process of iterative coding s trategies followed by a constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) within individual cases and among the entire group of case study participants the codes were truly grounded in the data. Table 3 6 contains sample focused codes organized under each of these theoretical code headings. These constructs are intricately related to one another as will be seen throughout the case study stories and discussed when describing the constructed theory at the end of this chapter. For example, the more a
195 part icipant was treated authentically within their laboratory placement, the more the participant was allowed to engage in authentic action. As a participant became s elf aware of the ways in which he or she was treated authentically and participating in authen tic scientific practic es, he or she in turn developed feelings of authenticity as he or she built an identity of himself or herself as a scientist. Implicit messages related to specific NOS ideas carried through authentic action were more influential when the student had a positive scientist self identity. Each of the three theoretical codes will now be briefly described. Authentic Action Authentic action in the context of this study is representative of any activity on the part of the case study participan t that could be thought of as being a part of the professional practices of working scientists. Observations of laboratory practices combined with corroborating information from participant and mentor interviews were used to develop an understanding of the authentic action the participant was engaged in during the course of the Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP). Examples of authentic action included but were not limited to the development of a research question, the design of methods to invest igate the question, the revision of those methods, the collection of empirical data, the analysis of data, the interpretation of results, the levels of collaboration experienced and the reporting of research findings. Being Treated Authentically Whether o r not the program participant was treated in an authentic way during the research apprenticeship appeared to be related to the quality of mentorship received. When a mentor valued the contributions that a participant made when working in his or her lab, li stened to and respected the ideas of the participant and recognized the
196 legitimate role the participant played in the laboratory, the participant was being treated authentically. Feelings of Authenticity Feelings of authenticity or a lack thereof on the p art of the program participants were a direct result of the authentic action they experienced and the ways in which they were treated authentically. This theoretical code speaks to the identity that the participant developed over the course of his or her e xperience in the laboratory. Feelings of comfort, belonging, adequacy and inclusion were classified as being authentic. When the participant self identified these feelings, they also accompanied the development of a scientist identity. Feelings of authenti city impacted the ways in which participant s perceived the levels of authenticity of the action in which they were taking part Case Study Reports What follows is a series of stories of the individual case stu dy participants of this study ( Table 3 2). Each story begins with a description of the background of the student, the laboratory in which they were placed and their research project. Next, the changes in NOS ideas for each case study participant as revealed through both written survey data and correspo nding survey interview data are summarized. Following this, self reported changes in NOS ideas and influencing factors related to these changes as revealed through participant and mentor interview data are described. Each story concludes with a discussion organized around the major themes (theoretical codes) that were used to group the focused codes that emerged through an application of constructivist grounded theory.
197 The six case study reports are presented in order from the participant that experienced t he lowest levels of authenticity in their respective laboratory placement to the participant that experienced the highest levels of authenticity in terms of action, feelings and treatment. Figure 5 1 is a continuum of authenticity for the six case study pa rticipants. Each participant is placed along the continuum according to the levels of authenticity he or she experienced. On this figure, ratings of low, medium and high are provided for each participant for each theoretical code. Following all six stories the emergent and constructed theory of the influencing factors related to changes in NOS ideas for the six case study participants is presented. Background Jane had no experience participating in authentic scientific research prior to her i nvolvement in the AESP. She did acknowledge completing a science fair project in fifth grade but dismissed it as not being all that unique of an experience when compared was a doctor and she described getting some exposure to science as a result. In terms of high school course work preparation, Jane had extensive background in a variety of sciences, particularly in chemistry. Prior to entering her senior year of high scho ol, she had already successfully completed one year of biology, one year of physics and two years of chemistry. At the beginning of the AESP, Jane wanted to be a doctor and was considering majoring in chemistry as a result of her early experiences in the
198 describe how her laboratory work prompted her to cons ider majoring specifically in biochemistry. e able to do it in college. (I1) At the end of the experience, Jane still intended to pursue a career in medicine. Jane enrolled in and was a participant of t he explicit/reflective seminar. Additionally, she was the only AESP participant in the laboratory in which she was placed. Laboratory description The laboratory where Jane conducted her research as a part of the AESP was representative of a typical laboratory in the chemistry department at the research university where the research apprenticeship progr am took place. The shelves and cabinets were full of a variety of chemical substances and solutions. Equipment such as pipettes, an incubator and an autoclave were clearly visible around the laboratory. Half a dozen graduate students worked as a part of th e laboratory group. They had decorated their individual laboratory workspaces with personal items such as family pictures. These graduate students appeared to be welcoming of Jane, although they were very quiet and worked rather independently. Apart from J mentor, Brad, not one of them was observed interacting with Jane during any of the six weekly laboratory observations. The laboratory group itself was conducting research organized around investigations related to nonribosomal protei n synthesis in roundworms. Research posters as well as humorous comic strips related to this topic decorated the walls around the room.
199 Project description Jane had a hard time explaining her project during interviews. The explanations she gave did not le ad the researcher to believe that she truly grasped the intricacies of her research. Based on an examination of her research paper, the purpose of her project was to determine ideal Enzyme Amino Acid pairs that could be used to artificially synthesize anti biotics. Roundworms were used as the hosts for this synthesis process. determined project. She was merely serving as a data collector for a project that Brad was working on that was a continuation of the work that the la boratory group as a whole was completing. As will be described in greater detail in the sections below, Jane spent much of her time transferring round worms from one petri dish to another under a microscope in order to keep them alive. Such work was indica tive of a laboratory assistant rather than a laboratory researcher in this laboratory context. Changes in NOS ideas Ideas about Science Survey (ISS) coupled with corresponding interviews about those responses revealed positive chan ges in her understandings of the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, distinctions between theories and laws in science, the creativity involved in scientific knowledge production, the subjective nature of science, the social embeddedness of scien tifi c knowledge construction, the tentative nature of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method (Table 4 9). Table 5 2 contains representative excerpts from these data sources for Jane that illustrate her pre experience views and her post expe rience views related to each of the aforementioned NOS aspects.
200 Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors When asked how her views of NOS may have changed over the course of the AESP, Jane self identified changes in her unde rstandings of the creative nature of science, the subjectivity of science, the social embeddedness of science and the myth of the scientific method. These self reported changes are evidenced by the following interview quotes. The main difference [in my NO S understandings] had to do with like how a person is involved in, like how their personalities and how their creativities y a factor in science. (SI2) science, but especially since my lab involved like science without the Dr. Stevens, thought that Jane may have encountered some experiences in the laboratory environment that may have influenced her understandings related to the myth of the scientific method. Well, she probably saw that this schedule is very kind of open. Yo u know have seen that you run into a lot of obstacles [when conducting scientific research]. (MI1) Jane identified two influencing factors related to her changes in these NOS idea s. Regarding the changes related to the social embedded nature of scientific knowledge and the subjectivity of science, she believed that the explicit/reflective seminar played the largest impact. This is evidenced by the following quotes. Because you see and looking at the same thing [duck/rabbit picture], we all saw different things. Like the pictures at the beginning of the seminar, we all thought of things differently. (SI2)
201 I think a lot of the a ctivities [influenced my perceptions]. Like the one with the strings and the tube, just seeing how everyone had different ideas of what it could be, like there are just so many ways you could think of things or interpret things. (SI2) Jane also thought tha t the journal writings had an impact on her understandings of science. would maybe write something down and think oh it could also be this other thing, so it made me see like two diffe rent sides of what I was saying and the two sides of the argument. (SI2) As far as the changes related to her understandings of the creative nature of science and the myth of the scientific method, Jane recognized that the laboratory itself played the bigg est factor in influencing her ideas. have a hypothesis and it involved changing the method instead of using a specific method to come to the conclusion. So just seeing like how we worked with that [influenced my perceptions]. (SI2) Authentic action While one could argue that the project that Jane was involved in was an authentic project in that i t was itself valuable within a scientific discipline, she personally did not have much o pportunity to participate in the full range of authentic action that accompanied it. In the first place, Jane did not get to participate in the design and development of her project. She was able to witness modifications to the methods employed in her rese arch, but was not observed nor did she report making any personal decisions regarding those modifications. Although she did collect data, she did not do so independently at any point in her project. Brad, her graduate student mentor said, to] any significant progress or significant research in my work. She was doing parts that
202 contrib utions that she was making epistemically to her project and attributed this as the reason for a loss of interest in her project over her time in the AESP. I think I got a little bit less interested as the summer went on because there to do. Like especially lately, because my project finished pretty quickly because I just kind of added on to this project. (I3) Addition ally, the data that Jane was collecting at first were not even used by her laboratory group. Jane herself recognized th at it took a while for her data to be treated in an authentic way by her laboratory group. use these. T hese are going to become contaminated after you do them. But worms and he [Brad] actually used that in his data. (I2) Jane then seemed somewhat surprised when it got to the p oint that her data were actually being used. She believed that early in the program her involvement in the research was for her own benefit rather than for the contributions actually being made to the laboratory group. Related to the authentic action Jane experienced in her laboratory placement were the levels of collaboration she encountered over the course of the research apprenticeship Jane was never observed working with any one other than with her graduate student mentor Brad, and even those observati ons were limited. Out of the six laboratory observations, Brad was only there three times. The result of this lack of use this time to work on her presentation, poster a nd paper that were required for the AESP. Therefore, for Jane, very little of the over thirty hours a week that she was required to spend in her laboratory was used actually collaborating with other working
203 scientists as authentic work was being conducted. On the contrary, Jane was spending her time in isolation working on required end products of research with which sh e had had little engagement Both Jane a nd Brad seemed frustrated at the lack of collaboration that they had experienced Jane explained it in the following manner. A big reason [for our lack of working together] is because he stays really on the computer. (I2) Brad explained that each Monday his laboratory group had a weekly laboratory group meeting and that Jane attended the first two of these meetings. For the rest of the experience, however, Jane was, according to Brad, uninterested in these me etings and would just show up to the lab and sit by herself doing nothing until the rest of the lab group would arrive. Brad was frustrated with the lack of engagement on the part of Jane. He felt like she missed out on many opportunities for collaboration Being treated authentically Those who were mentoring her over the course of the AESP treated Jane as a visiting high school student. Brad described his role as being a teacher to Jane. supposed to be done and what you know is supposed to not be done in the here with a project. So she was basically following what I teach her to do should be comparable to mine or something like that. (MI2) in kind to such interaction s (MI2). He felt that he had to treat her as a high school student because of how disengaged she was in the laboratory. An example that he gave was regarding how often he would catch her texting on her cell phone. Dr. Stevens backed up this sentiment.
204 et she did not gain their trust and respect to the point that they could actually do so. In their opinion, Jane refused to take advantage of the opportunity that she had been given to participate in authentic scientific research in more genuine ways. As a result, both Brad and Dr. Stevens viewed Jane as a visitor in the laboratory. At first she was a good student. At first she was a smart student. I felt she could actually contribute and she really takes the time to understand. And I also felt she can be a good researcher if she really stays in the field for a while. (MI2) At the end of the experience, Neither Dr. Stevens or Brad felt the same way about Jane. Rather, they felt that she had never become a working contributor to their laboratory group. When D was because of the complex nature of their laboratory research. If you have like something yo u know that the student could do over and over again, something simple you know, that would, it would help know if Brad had a specific activity that needed to be done everyday, he we work around here. (MI1) Feelings of authenticity Jane personally saw herself falling somewhere in between a working contributor to her laboratory and someone who was just visit ing. That being said, at the beginning of the apprenticeship she felt like she was closer to being a working contributor than not. changed somewhat by the time of her second semi structured interview.
205 I guess I am a little bit more of a contributor, but I still feel in between [a w to do things. (I2) Jane then did not develop a full scientist identity over the course of her experien ce in the AESP. She felt like the work that she was doing was artificial to a certain extent in that it was designed for her benefit rather than for the benefit of the professional scientists in her laboratory. Summary Of all of the case study participants, Jane was the one who demonstrated the most growth in her understanding of NOS over the course of the AESP. But, c ompared to the other case study part icipants, she was in a laboratory where she experienced the least amount of authentic action, the least amount of authentic treatment from her mentors and developed the lowest science self identity. It is true that Jane did not make a concerted effort to t ake advantage of the opportunities that were available to her in the lab. Her passive demeanor in the lab was at least partially related to the ways in which her mentors treated her and the activities in which they allowed her to be involved For these rea sons, a majority of the changes in her NOS views were likely related to explicit messages she received in the explicit/reflective seminar rather than to implicit messages she may have received through her participation in the laboratory. This speaks to the power of the explicit/reflective approach in this context. The explicit/reflective approach was particularly powerful for Jane given that the social nature of scientific work was not experienced by Jane in her laboratory and as a result she may even have received negative implicit messages regarding related NOS and the social embedded nature of scientific knowledge carried messages that may
206 have been more powerful for her than were the implicit messages present in her laboratory placement. Additionally, she self attributed changes in her understandings of the myth of the scientific method to the actual research that was being conducting in the laboratory in which she had been placed. Perhaps when a student is placed in a laboratory where the research being conducted varies drastically from the traditional scientific method, then even when the student is not authentically involved in conducting the research, he or s he still can pick up on the fact that the scientific method is not always followed when scientific research is being conducted In other words, even positive implicit messages may be present in undesirable laboratory placements in professional scientific c ontexts for certain NOS aspects. Background Isabel was a Hispanic student who received a scholarship to attend the AESP. She came from a high school where she was enrolled in a medical magnet program. Isabel intended to pursue a medical rel ated career at the beginning of the program. Her experiences in the program gave her a self reported confidence to follow through with chemistry classes that are required for the medical Isabel entered the program with extensive content background as a result of her science coursework in high school. She had already completed three years of chemistry, one year of biology and one year of physics prior to entering the AESP.
207 Isabel recognized that very little laboratory experience had accompanied her school science coursework. did was experience [I have]. I came here [to the AESP] mostly for the lab. (I1) Additionally, Isabel had completed multiple science fair projects since the third grade. In fact in the ninth grade she won a school wide first place ribbon for an science fair competition. Isabel described the results of her participation in these science fairs in the foll had impacted her views related to the myth of the scientific method prior to the AESP. Isabel was a mem ber of the reflective seminar and was paired with another AESP participant in her laboratory placement. Isabel herself valued working closely with this other program participant. ll d ed so we have to take turns doing things. But, it is great to have somebody to talk to, like to tell how I feel about this or even ask him questions sometimes. (I2) r. Barry, also recognized the value in having two AESP participants working in his lab but was frustrated that the program itself required the students to turn in two separate papers and two separate presentations even though they were working on the same project. He felt like this unnecessarily minimized the amount of collaboration that the high school students experienced and may have provided them with a misleading picture regarding the amount of collaboration involved in professional scientific researc h.
208 When they were working on the same project I felt like it would have been a much better use of time to have them work together on [the paper and presentation]. Because realistically that is how we do it in most disciplines anyway. You know, when I am d oing a presentation, or one of my students is doing a presentation there is cross talk where we are going back and forth editing something. You know when we are writing an abstract for a meeting or something there are multiple authors. And different author s are putting in their two cents and then you come out with a composite for the whole group. (MI1) Laboratory description Isabel worked in a forest pathology laboratory during the AESP. Kevin, a doctoral student working under Dr. Barry, mentored Isabel. Th e members of the laboratory group were very inclusive of both Isabel and the other program participant placed with her. Isabel was observed interacting many times with different members of the laboratory group. Multiple members of the laboratory group were observed helping each other out on various research projects including the project that Isabel was working on. One example of this occurred when the program participants were observed as a laboratory technician mentored them as they learned how to perform a DNA extraction technique (O3). Project description Isabel investigated the location of a specific fungus ( Raffaelea Lauricola ) within Redbay trees. Raffaelea Lauricola is a fungus that is vectored by the redbay ambrosia beetle and is responsible for la ural wilt disease, which is fatal to these trees. The project and preparing petri dishes containing cross sections from certain parts of the tree. Fungi were then cultur ed on these samples and DNA exaction was performed in order to identify the fungus present. The purpose of this research was to determine where the
209 fungus was distributed throughout the tree (e.g. inner sapwood or outer sapwood) in order to help with effor ts to combat the disease. Changes in NOS ideas ISS coupled with corresponding interviews about those responses revealed positive changes in her understandings of the creativity involved in the production of scientific knowledge, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge ( T able 4 9). Table 5 3 contains representative excerpts from these data sources for Isabel that illustrate her pre experience views and her post experience views related to each of the aforementioned NOS aspects. Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors Isabel was asked to identify if any of her NOS ideas had changed over the course of the AESP. She was unable to specifically identi fy the NOS aspects that had been influenced as revealed through the ISS That being said, Isabel described that she had not realized before this summer that scientists were so collaborative or that they made mistakes. I thought they [scientists] only work found out why it [the results] had come out with that fungus, or what had ha ppened. (I2) This new appreciation for the social nature of science might possibly be related to the growth that Isabel experienced in her perspectives regarding the creativity involved in the production of scientific knowledge and the subjectivity of scie ntific knowledge. differently at the end of the AESP than she had at the beginning, they stated that they
210 thought that she had came to better appreciate the tentative nature of sci entific knowledge and the collaborative processes involved in conducting scientific research. Dr. Barry wledge. Yeah well, one of the concepts that I had to get across to them was that we some literature searches to look for the background information that was needed to do their study. A it exciting working in biological sciences. That you a re working on teaching of high school students goes. (MI1) participant she was working with came to better understand the collaboration involved in hat the average researcher does. So I think that they were pretty unsure at first, but then got to Kevin were able to recognize some of the changes in NOS that Isabel ex hib ited on her surveys and that she self reported through open ended interviews. Isabel described both the reflective seminar and the laboratory as being influential in impacting her NOS ideas during her participation in the AESP. As for the reflective semin ar, Isabel discussed how the journaling process enabled her to think about science in new ways. even more about it a nd I changed my mind on it. So it definitely made me realize that what I thought was pretty wrong in a way. (I3)
211 Isabel was describing how when she would respond to a journal prompt, the researcher would give her feedback in the form of questions and ask h er to elaborate further. In this way, Isabel was encouraged to reflect deeply on each response. When asked what aspect of the experience was the most influential in impacting her NOS views, Jennifer aboratory on experience with it [science]. Like I really Authentic action Isabel participated in varying degrees of authentic action as she worked on her researc h project. Her project was well underway by the time she entered the AESP. As a result, most all of the decisions regarding how to go about answering the research question were made by Kevin prior to the AESP participants even entering the laboratory. Isab been ongoing, so they already know what to expect or what to try and find out a certain contri bute any original ideas to her project. This lack of being epistemically involved in the development and modification of the research project indicated a limit to the authentic action that Isabel experienced in her laboratory. However, Isabel was involved in highly authentic levels of data collection and analysis. The work that she was doing was valuable to Kevin as a part of his dissertation and held meaningful real world applications related to the treatment of tree diseases. Dr. Barry explained how the r and that the research group was genuinely excited about the work that Isabel and the
212 other program participant were completing as part of their experience in the apprenticeship I tried to make them feel th at their project had a real world implication. That the results that they get would actually be used for something and that it was not just for academic exercise. It was actually something that had a real world application and we were very interested in wh at the results were going to be. I think that helped them feel like they were part of a team and they were doing work. (MI1) Isabel and the other program participant in the group worked so well in the laboratory that they learned how to function within it as full working participants of the program participant were able to act in such highly authentic ways as they conducted their research that those who were mentoring them were able to give them the freedom to work independently. Collaboration was also something that was experienced by Isabel in her laboratory placement In fact, the idea that scientists did not work in isolation was something that Isabel developed a new appreciation for during the AESP. She self described the ways in which she collaborated with o thers in her laboratory. At first I worked with Kevin and Kevin only. The grad students were there just doing their own things, [but] towards the end, we would help them along PCR and Being treated authentically Kevin treated the high school students in ways that represented varying levels of authenticity. He recognized that they were contributing to his research in meaningful
213 ways. Th ey were not burdensome to him and he treated them accordingly. Kevin put it best in his own words during an interview. So it was actually a benefit for me to have them help because they were an extra pair of hands that could help do things like subculture fungi or even plate. You know, I would sit them down and they would sterilize their hands, and th ey did the plating, which was huge for me to be able to back off and go work on something else while they were doing the legwork of the research. They were certainly not a hindrance at all. They were a big help. (MI2) That being said, Kevin had former expe riences as a high school science teacher and would often treat the program participants like high school students rather than authentic scientific researchers. For example, Kevin recognized that these high school students lacked the experience they needed to write successfully. He therefore took on the role of a teacher and devoted a large portion of laboratory time to helping the students with the written products required of them by the program itself. In fact, during multiple weekly laboratory observatio ns, the students would be working on computers editing their research papers based on feedback they had received from Kevin. This took away from time that they could authentically participate in the research of the laboratory. [Their] writing was really pr they would present the data and explain things is a certain way. I think they should have had a class once a week on how to write science. (MI2) Feelings of authenticity Isabel was very interested in her project This interest was related to how she felt ways feel this way however. In fact, during her first semi
214 structured interview, Isabel said that she felt like she was doing non important tasks in the laboratory alongside the work that more meaningfully contributed to the overall project. I feel like so As ti me went on, Isabel recognized that the work that she was doing was the same work that would have been done in the lab had she not been there. This contributed to her feelings of authenticity and her identity formation as a scientist. In her own words, Isab el However, nowhere in any interview or observation did Isabel refer to her experiment as never took full ownership over the project she was working on. Kevin himself considered Isabel and the program participant working with her as He felt that they were to a certain degree authentic participants and thought that they might have picked up on the way that he felt about them through how he treated them. approach it. Someone coming from a different background that had to be they felt to some degree that they were taking ownership of that idea that they were not just there to take up space, but t hey were there to get immersed and experience something that they were an active part of. (MI2) Summary Isabel experienced some growth in her understandings of the creative nature of scientific knowledge, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and t he tentativeness
215 of scientific knowledge. These changes can likely be attributed to her authentic involvement in a consequential research project and the activities and conversations that she engaged in with her mentors For example, Dr. Barry had Isabel p articipate in a literature search that he knew would yield uncertain results. He then held conversations with her about how scientific knowledge is not really fixed like it is portrayed in a textbook. Perhaps this positively impacted her understandings of the tentative nature of science as the activity contained explicit messages about this NOS aspect. Additionally, Isabel was involved in a highly collaborative and social laboratory environment. She experienced first hand the subjectivity involved as her me ntors applied creativity to account for the results that they obtained. through what she experienced in her laboratory placement. As a result of reflective journal prompts, Isabel was attentive to the methods employed in her research setting. I [had] like little checklists in mind to see if it really is, like if it really was true [Kevin] would skip the hypothesis, like the hypothesis part. We actually did make one and he continued like throughout the whole steps in order. (SI2) When what she observed in her laboratory was a strict application of the scientific method, her understanding that all scientis ts really did employ the method was receive. Consequently, explicit conversations regarding the relationship between research questions and methods may have been beneficial for Isabel. In summary, reflective journal prompts encouraged Isabel to reflect about the implicit messages that she was receiving in the laboratory. Additionally, Isabel
216 experienced some explicit interactions with her mentors that may have positively im pacted her understandings about certain aspects of NOS. Background Tom came to the AESP with little to no prior experience in research science. He had completed a number of science fair projects in both middle and high school, but Tom entered the program as a rising junior in high school. His freshman year he successfully completed an honors biol ogy course and during his sophomore year he completed a pre he believed it had prepared him most for his participation in the AESP (I1). However, he acknowledged the limitatio ns of his preparation for what he was currently experiencing in the AESP. one on my own. And then with the machines and the th grade chemistry. (I1) Tom understood that he was learning things in the AESP that he had not previously encountered in his high school science coursewor k. Additionally, he felt that the laboratory work he had participated in during high school was significantly different from what he was experiencing in the AESP. The main difference is that in high school when you do lab research, the teacher and you pr etty much already know the result. With this kind of
217 Tom then was readily able to recognize that school science was largely inauthe ntic when compared to the work of professional science. Tom entered the AESP with a desire to pursue a science related career. Specifically he said that he planned to major in chemistry during his first semi structured interview. Although Tom did enter wi th a relatively firm commitment to a science major, he left the program with a newly found desire to become a research scientist. with papers that we have to fill out for lab comp letion, and this being in a big lab and doing the actual research and collecting data has really put me in ind of influenced sort of where I may go in life now such as job wise. (I2) Tom was a member of the implicit seminar and was not placed with any other program participant in his laboratory group. Laboratory description Tom was placed in a biochemistry la boratory housed within the chemistry department during his apprenticeship He was mentored by Lisa, a graduate student mentor I guess than a teacher. A mentor in that I wou multiple occasions where he interacted with D r. Carter and asked her individual questions about his project. Tom worked in a large laboratory that actually housed two research groups. As such, he was able to interact with a wide range of graduate students with whom he was particularly social. In fact each day Tom would take the
218 (O4). During one laboratory visit, Tom was observed getting a glass, cleaning it and making himself a cup of tea at the request of some grad uate students in the group (O4). Tom did not expect this level of socialization as he entered the AESP. He described his I probably did not expect her to be so laid back in a way. But I mean this whole chemistry department, not just Dr. Carter seems to be a lot more laid [the graduate student researchers] just kind of chilling sort of thing and they here which is good. (I1) during each laboratory observation that was conducted during the AESP. As Tom described above, although the laboratory environment was a very social one, it was also very p roductive. During each of the six observations, the members of the laboratory group, Tom included, were always at work on a research related task. Tom specifically was often on the move as he worked on his research project. He was observed in an analytical laboratory in another building preparing buffer solutions one day (O1) and observed working with analytical chemistry equipment in the main laboratory room during subsequent observations (e.g. O2). There really was not much down time in the laboratory tha t was observed. Project description In his project, Tom investigated the efficiency of a specific lipid transfer protein as he varied the pH of the system. He did this through an application of SPREE (surface plasmon resonance enhanced ellipsometry) analy sis techniques. SPREE analysis involves directing a laser beam through a prism onto a gold foil surface to detect the
219 thickness of a coated lipid bilayer. The protein is then added and the time that it takes for the lipid bilayer to be removed at various p H levels is measured. A deficiency of the lipid transfer protein that Tom was researching is the cause of Tay Sachs disease, a genetic disorder where gangliosides accumulate in the brain leading to premature death nificant in developing further understandings related to this disorder that currently has no known treatments. He won an award from the AESP for the best presentation of his research findings. Changes in NOS ideas ISS revealed no ch anges in his understandings of specific NOS aspects. However, corresponding interviews about those responses revealed positive changes in his understandings of the empirical natu re of scientific knowledge ( Table 4 yth of the scientific method were informed both at the beginning and the end of the AESP, it is clear from survey interview data that very early in the program, Tom had experiences that may have impacted his understandings of the scientific method. It is n ot out of the realm of possibility that his view related to this aspect was positively impacted as a result. Table 5 4 contains representative excerpts from these data sources for Tom that illustrate his pre experience views and his post experience views r elated to both the empirical nature of science and the myth of the scientific method. Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors When Tom was asked to share the ways in which his ideas about science had changed during his part icipation in the AESP he identified new perspectives related to the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method in addition to a newly found appreciation for the
220 social and collaborative nature of scientific work. However, according to the written ideas were informed both at the beginning and at the end of the program. Potentially, his views at the end of the experience were even more informed in these NOS areas than they were at the beginning. It may be that such changes were not evident through the use of the science survey data and that the power of this data source was limited as a result. Wh his NOS ideas that they perceived over the course of the AESP, they were unable to Attention is now identified NOS changes related to the aforementioned NOS aspects. Tom said that he entered the AESP with the understanding that the outcome of his ups within science and it indicate an informed perspective related to the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. d escribed specific unexpected outcomes he obtained through his research when discussing the tentativeness of his findings. discuss future work] because everything is planned out. You hypothesize something
221 actually see some real results that work out in a weird way is interesting. (I3) reported ch anges regarding the tentativeness of scientific knowledge were related to his informed perspectives of the subjective nature of science which he also self informed perspectives are indicated in the following interview quotes. result. So I was able to experience that with the data and I ac tually had straightforward [in how you interpret them]. (I3) actly what happened. Conclusions that are made are (SI2). He experienced first hand that different interpretations can be made from the same pieces of evidence and th at therefore conclusions in science are tentative by their very nature. Tom also believed that his understandings of the myth of the scientific method contrast to what h Finally, Tom felt that he had come to appreciate the social collaborative nature of scientific research in a way that he had not previously understood. He said as early in
222 Tom was also asked to identify what parts of the AESP had influenced in NOS ideas. Tom very clearly indica ted that the laboratory placement rather than the se minar or interactions with other program staff were the sources of any changes in his NOS ideas that occurred. Definitely the laboratory. Just being in there every day and just seeing that scientists are just normal people. They just come in, turn on their music, s a big massive portion of it. (SI2) Tom described scientists as normal people who spend most of their time discussing with others how to analyze data. Observing this occurring regularly in his laboratory placement was according to Tom one factor that infl uenced his NOS ideas. Authentic action Tom was involved in some aspects of his research that could be described as authentic action and others that were more representative of inauthentic action. In regards to inauthenticity, Tom was not involved in any o f the design of his project or in any subsequent modifications of the procedures. In fact, during laboratory observations, Tom would wait for Lisa to arrive and give him clear instructions before he would manipulate any of the equipment or perform any data collection task, even simple ones. It [the project] was pretty much set before he came. You know it was So I guess I didn new exactly what it was we needed to do. (MI2)
223 Tom himself recognized that he was not being involved in the development of his (I1). Tom continued to describe specifically how he was not making any decisions probably the the relationship between pH and the significance of the research relating to Tay Sachs However, Tom had a clear understanding of the development of the project even process of determini Based on statements such as this, Tom had an informed understanding of why he was not involved in the de cision making regarding the design of his research project. In fact, looking into the research literature that served as the basis for his project helped to stimulate his interest in the project in the first place. The first couple of weeks, I was just ki nd of going with what Lisa said, kind more. (I2) ision making, he was involved in authentic data collection and analysis of that data. Tom said that it was early data he was obtaining (I1). The authenticity of the d ata that Tom was collecting
224 h that Tom was engaged in. Lisa also isa would have had to do if Tom had not been there (MI1). One other aspect of authentic action that Tom was engaged in was collaboration within his laboratory group and with other laboratory groups in the chemistry department. Tom described his work as be the labs that intermingle with each other. I would say the whole chemistry department is needed to interact with graduate stude nts from other research groups to reserve and share pieces of laboratory equipment. Additionally, Tom saw collaboration occurring as he prepared his paper, poster and research presentation to disseminate his results. [increased] based on putting together the research weekly research group meetings where graduate students would present their findings. He felt like his attendance at the se gatherings where he had the opportunity to witness first hand collaborative critique of presentations had impacted the way in which he presented his own research. During the last two laboratory observations, Tom was observed working with Lisa and other graduate students on how to best g raphically represent his data during his own research presentation.
225 Being treated authentically Like the levels of authentic action Tom engaged in, he was treated by his mentors and other members of his laboratory group i n some ways that were authentic and other ways that were less than authentic. The relationships that Tom built in his laboratory group were quite genuine. He described making a number of close friends with graduate students in the lab oratory including his own mentor. He felt like he was included in a way that a typical high school student would not have been. On multiple occasions he brought up the friendship building that occurred through having morning tea with the graduate students each day. However, Li sa never really treated Tom like an authentic member of the laboratory group. In fact, Lisa said that when she found out she would be mentoring a high school helped me, but it just took you know with him there, it took five times as long as doing it again multiple lab observations, Lisa was observed getting visibly frustrated with Tom and the mistakes that he was making as he prepared solutions and ran tests on the SPREE equipme nt. In summary, Lisa never treated Tom like anything other than a high school student and she did not seem to genuinely value his presence in the lab. For these reasons, she did not treat Tom in a fully authentic way. Feelings of authenticity gs of authenticity developed over the course of the AESP. During his first semi
226 work myself. I By the time of the second interview Tom felt like he was a working contributor to his laboratory was doing in data collection and analysis was authentic and that he was an authentic member of his laboratory group as a result. Lisa said that she believed that Tom thought he was a working member of the laboratory group and that he was more than a visito r, although she never treated him as one. Tom felt like he was a working contributor even though he did not fully understand the value of the data that he was collecting. This feeling contrasts with that of both Lisa and Dr. Carter who trusted the quality of the work that Tom completed and understood tailored to him as a high school student and did not know whether or not his results were useful to anyone. Tom expresse d this feeling in the following interview excerpt. Summary Tom was a unique participant in the study. He entered the AESP with relatively informed views of NOS according to his pre survey. However, it seems that some of these informed views, particularly his perspectives regarding the myth of the scientific method, may have been impacted very early on through his participation in his
227 laboratory setting. This was the case even though the authentic action that Tom participated in was limited in the sense that he had no input into the design or the modification of the procedures that he used to collect and analyze data. That being said, Tom did have an informed conception of the development of his research project. Additionally, according to Tom, Lisa had explicit conversations with hi m regarding the lack of necessity for having a hypothesis when conducting scientific research (Table 5 4) positively impacted as a result of his participation in the program. Perhaps this can be attributed to the levels of authenticity in data collection, analysis, presentation and collaboration that Tom experienced in his laboratory placement. Finally, although Tom did not understand the value of his results and was not treat ed in a fully authentic way by Lisa, he left the program feeling like he had become an authentic member of his laboratory group. Perhaps this was due to the acceptance he received from others in the group during his apprenticeship Backgr ound the AESP as a high school student. Her family had very strongly encouraged her to pursue a science r elated career. At the beginning of the program, Jennifer desired to attend medical school and then to become a medical doctor. Her future plans remained unaltered during the duration of the AESP. During her first interview, Jennifer stated that research sc ience was not for her. That being said, she felt adequately prepared for her participation in the
228 program this summer as a result of her high school science coursework. She had already taken biology and chemistry through an International Baccalaureate (IB) program at her school. Jennifer enrolled in and was a member of the explicit/reflective seminar. Laboratory description Jennifer worked in a laboratory that investigated plant evolution. Two principal investigators (PIs) that happened to be married to eac h other operated the lab oratory Jennifer was herself primarily mentored by Fred who was a doctoral graduate student working under Mrs. Dr. Jones. Jennifer was paired with another participant of the AESP. Additionally, a third high school student was volun teering in the laboratory over the summer. The laboratory group itself was a very large group. The atmosphere of the lab oratory was one that was both serious and quiet as researchers went about their work diligently. The laboratory had typical biotechnolog y equipment dispersed throughout the room including an incubator, thermocylers, centrifuges and a plethora of equipment for pipeting. There was an expectation among the laboratory group for members to present at major professional conferences. As a part of this, there were multiple lab group meetings that Jennifer and the other high school students attended where graduate students gave their presentations and were provided feedback. Project description genes were responsible for the development of the pitcher leaves of a carnivorous plant. She conduct ed this research by performing polymerase chain r eactions to isolate and amplify the genes under investigation. These genes were then sequenced and compare d with other gene sequences in order to identify them. She enjoyed participating in this research. Early in
22 9 hat Fred had written. The data that were dissertation. Changes in NOS ideas understandings of the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. However, on her corresponding survey interviews, the only exhibited growth in NOS ideas was related to subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method (Table 4 9). Table 5 5 contains representative excerpts from these data sources for Jennifer that illustrate her pre experience views and her post experience views related to e ach of the aforementioned NOS aspects including those that were only revealed to change through the written science survey data (i.e. the empirical nature of scientific knowledge and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge). Self reported changes in N OS ideas and corresponding influencing factors Throughout the experience, Jennifer thought that her understandings of NOS most (I3). However, in her final interview, the post science survey interview, Jennifer acknowledged the possibility that some of her views about science may have changed over the course of the summer. It think for some of it, it was the exact same thing, but have been some changes. Probably just because I never really thought about anything this way until like I had these interviews and stuff. So I
230 and I guess l ike just when the question was asked, like I think differently about it. (SI2) However, Jennifer was unable to precisely pinpoint which aspects of NOS she understood in a different way at the end of the experience. That being said, she did say a few things that hinted at growth in understandings related to the myth of the scientific method in her semi structured interviews. working out we had to change things and go back and fix things. Try t hings expect it. (I2) She also expressed a new ly found awareness related to the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. I guess like all of our PCRs li all them certain why it happens, so we just have to play around to see what will When the PI and the graduate student mentor were asked about whe ther they the experience, they both described the possibility that her understandings of the collaboration involved in professional science may have changed. We kind of feel like the lab is kind of a big family. I guess, certainly something they [Jennifer and the other program participant] would have at least is not a single individual sitting in a c orner, that there is a social element. (MI1) also indicated that perhaps the social collaborative nature of the laboratory in which Jennifer was placed might have impacted her understandings of NOS.
231 Because ours i s also kind of a different lab than that, we have like two PIs one professor guy at the head of the lab like bossing everybody around, but professor shares his work and stuff like that. (MI2) cultural embeddedness of scientific knowledge over the course of the experience were not detected (she was ra ted informed both before and after the experience), her understandings of the subjective nature of scientific knowledge did appear to change. Perhaps these changes related t Jennifer was asked to describe any factors that she thought might have influenced her understandings of NOS ideas. She specifically mentioned during one interview that apart fro m the surveys and the interviews she had not spent much time thinking about these ideas ( SI2 ). She also discussed how at other times throughout the experience the reflective journals and her participation in the explicit/reflective seminar were influential in shaping her NOS ideas. Jennifer did not think that her experiences in the laboratory pla yed a role in [NOS] ( SI2 ). Authentic action Jennifer participated in action in the l aboratory that could be described as being authentic in the degree to which it resembled the practices of professional scientists. In professional practice, the scientist is involved in the development of a research question
232 and the methods used to carry o n an investigation. In the case of Jennifer, Fred alone made few significant contributions to her project. That being said, she did have some limited opportunities to make day to day decisions regarding how to go about individual experimental trials. This was observed by the researcher when visiting Jennifer in her lab and echoed by Jennifer in her own words during interviews. This was a preplanned project. My grad student got a grant for this project. to Later on in the same interview, Jennifer described how she was involved in collaborative decision making with her graduate student mentor when certain experiments needed to be modified. Our grad student Fred will talk to us about it [the necessary modifications] up with a new idea of what we can do to test something. We did like this experimental PCR today and we all came up with it together. (I1) Jennifer then was involved only to a limited extent epistemically in the design of her research project, but did play a part in daily modifications to the methods she used to investigate her question. Related to the authentic action Jennifer experie nced in her laboratory investigation was the collaboration that was present in her placement. This collaboration was evident in the way that graduate students worked with each other in the lab oratory but also in how the high school students worked togethe r. As was previously mentioned, Jennifer was placed with another participant of the authentic research program in her laboratory. This naturally increased the amount of collaboration that Jennifer experienced when
233 compared with other case study participant s who were placed in laboratories with no other high school students. In fact, collaboration was something that was observed during every laboratory visit made by the researcher. Jennifer would often work collaboratively with the other high school students as they discussed how to set up their experimental trials. During one observation, the researcher noticed the program participants sharing with each other what they had recorded in their laboratory notebooks (O2). They also were observed discussing how to analyze and present their results. In an interview with Dr. Jones, she explained the importance of collaboration as an authentic component of scientific practice for her personally. I guess I try to bring lots of different perspectives to bear on a single views. (MI1) experienc ed by Jennifer and the other high school student apprentice placed within it. In addition to this collaboration, Jennifer was a part of a laboratory group that as a the resear cher had the opportunity to attend a weekly laboratory group meeting where members of the group were sharing presentations that they were going to give at an upcoming international conference. Jennifer herself recognized the importance of these meetings. S opinions to try to help them make their presentations as good as possible Jennifer an d the other high school student that she was working with were also observed learning from other members of the laboratory group how to share their findings in effective ways. On one occasion, Fred walked the high school students down
234 a hallway where posters were displayed so that the students could learn from past research how to effectively pr esent genetic research results. Jennifer recognized the value of learning from past research and said that what had been done previously in her lab oratory ( O3 ). This group critique of work and learning from what had gone on in th e past is representative of authentic action taken by professional scientists. Being treated authentically Jennifer believed that her mentors throughout the research experience were treating her in authentic ways. Such feelings were validated during labor atory participant to work independently. This seemed to be indicative of the le vels of trust they had for the work of the participants Jennifer herself described how this inde pendence occurred through a gradual release of control from the graduate student mentor to those being apprenticed. At first he [Fred] was taking us step by step through everything, but now he just tells us what to do and he goes and works on something els e and then we do everything, and everyone in the lab is doing all their things at once. (I1) It should be noted, that this quote was taken from the first interview that was conducted early on in the experience. Therefore, it did not take long for Jennifer to begin to be viewed himself as a mentor who did give instruction but who did not order his students around.
235 Not only did Fred allow the students to work independently as the y collected data, he also allowed them some autonomy as the y analyzed the data they had collec ted. This was observed as Jennifer and the other program participant placed with her were working using computer databases to sequence genes. Fred was observed allowing them the freedom to come up with their own interpretations of their experimental result s. Fred himself alluded to the idea that he thought of Jennifer and the other program participant tags, so they were like a part of us ( MI2 ). Both Dr. Jones and Fred valued the wor k that Jennifer and t he other program participant were doing this summer and were able to recognize the contributions that the research was making. This clearly came through in talking with Dr. Jones. On what they got, you know they were able to find a few of the sequences that they were, that he [Fred] was looking for and he is going to be able to include those in his work. So I think that they really provided some information, I think it also showed maybe which places that he thought ng to work and so he can adjust from there. (MI1) Fred also recognized the value of Jennifer and the other student. He had confidence in the quality of the data collected and the results that were achieved by Jennifer. He also felt that this quality was d irectly related to his abilities as a mentor to prepare them to them on a directly related to her being treated authentically. Jennifer and the other program participant gained the trust of their mentors and therefore were allowed to act in relatively aut hentic ways.
236 Feelings of authenticity Jennifer herself felt like an authentic member of the laboratory group in which she was placed. From the very beginning she felt like she was a contributor in her laboratory therefore she felt like she was an authentic worker. Dr. Jones described how she thought that Jennifer probably felt like an au thentic member of her laboratory group. I mean they knew I think that what they [Jennifer and the other program y like they were you know, real members of the lab and not just visitors who were here to learn how to do this but to stay out of the way. (MI1) Dr. Jones was correct in thinking th at Jennifer recognized the value of the work that she was doing. She was quite eloquent in her description of the importance of her research project and related it to the novelty of the work. So no one really before this project particularly knew what gene s did what. So part of this project is finding out what genes are actually affecting the leaf development, which these genes are. So that is just plain new information and not just new to the scientific community. So that will help out with other projects dealing with anything related to this. (I3) comfort in the lab] has gone up. I feel like interview she attributed this sense of belonging to the amount of time she had spent in
237 authenticity were directly related to the identity that she developed of herself as a scientist. It is believed that these feelings were related to the ways in which she was treated authentically by her mentors and that as a result the implicit messages re ceived through her authentic action in the laboratory impacted her NOS understandings. Summary Jennifer was part of the explicit/reflective group and was working in her laboratory with another participant of the AESP. Some of her views about NOS were impac ted over the course of the experience. However, her views about the relationship between theory and law were not impacted even though she was a member of the explicit/reflective seminar where views related to this impact of NOS were significantly and posit ively impacted for the group as a whole. Jennifer did not encounter anything in her laboratory placement to challenge her perspective regarding this aspect. It could be that for Jennifer, her changes in NOS views were the result of a mixture of the implici t messages that Jennifer was receiving in the laboratory and the explicit experiences she had in the seminar itself, and that only when these two sources of information were re of scientific knowledge, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method were positively impacted in ways that seem linked at least in part to experiences in the laboratory itself in addition to activities presented i n the any explicit NOS conversations with her or the other program participant in her laboratory, changes due to laboratory participation were most likely the result of i mplicit
238 messages. However, Jennifer did not recognize the laboratory as a source of any change s in her NOS ideas. Background John was a Hispanic student who received a scholarship to attend the AESP. He had participated in a science fair duri ng his freshman year of high school, but other than that had no prior experiences conducting scientific research outside of a formal school science context. He described high school coursework that he had completed in biology and in chemistry but felt that he was not as prepared for the program as other participants who had already successfully completed advanced p lacement science classes. John discussed how he would ask questions to other more knowledgeable ng to her [another program participant in (I1). t the beginning of the program. John he would try to read somethi ng from his textbook and then not understand what he was reading and subsequently would fail a quiz in science. He contrasted this school experience with what he was encountering at the AESP very early on in the summer. my mentors] talk to you about it, and if you get it
239 content knowledge through the mentorship he received in the AESP and was less frustrated with science as a resu lt. considering careers outside of the realm of science. However, at the end of th e AESP John self described a renewed commitment to a science related future particularly one that involved a focus in scientific research. It [the AESP] was wonderful, amazing and I would do it again and I will stick in animals. That will be interesting. I like learning about why they do specific ey do John was paired with another program participant in his laboratory. John found this arrangement to be valuable for a number of reasons. He described being able to go to this other participant when he had quest ions about content and appreciated being able developed with this participant and the informal conversations that he had with her during down times in the laboratory. He John enrolled in and was placed in the implicit seminar. As such, he did not complete any reflective journal entries nor did he engage in any explicit NOS a ctivities or related group seminar discussions.
240 Laboratory description John was working in an animal behavior research laboratory through the biology department at the u niversity where the AESP took place. He was mentored by Dr. Davidson, the PI of the la b, and Rebecca a graduate student working on her dissertation research under the supervision of Dr. Davidson. Much of the research that conducting research was divided be tween work in a traditional laboratory room and a tank room that housed the fish that were under investigation. In the tank room, John and the other program participant placed with him would record observations of fish behavior in a variety of ways includi ng video taping fish interactions. In the traditional laboratory room, computers were used to analyze data that were collected in the tank room. John experienced a laboratory environment that was very warm and friendly. On multiple observations it was note d that laughter was a frequent occurrence in the laboratory rooms. John described this atmosphere as being different from what he and then you leave and you report to your professor your findings. [However], it was Project description Cichlid fish. John set up a number of different nests for mating pairs o f fish. These fish then spawned and the tanks filled with their offspring. A physical model of a predator fish was then manipulated within the tank and John recorded the number of times that the parent fish would attack the model as they protected their yo ung. The behavior was also videotaped. John was then able to use computer software to explore the
241 relationship between this behavior and the specific architecture of the nest. Statistical analysis was performed in order to discuss the significance of the r elationships observed. John won an AESP award for the quality of his research presentation. Changes in NOS ideas written science surveys were the most different from his NOS ideas as revealed through open ended interview s regarding his written survey responses. Whereas no positive changes in NOS ideas were revealed through the written survey data, positive changes knowledge, the creative nature of scientific knowledge, the social embeddedness of science and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge were clearly observed through an analysis of his interview data (Table 4 9). Table 5 6 contains representative excer pts from these data sources for John that illustrate his pre experience views and his post experience views related to each of the aforementioned NOS aspects. Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influencing factors John thought that his N OS ideas had not been influenced by his participation in the AESP. When he was asked whether or not he had different perceptions of science not really sure. I per haps he would have recognized and self identified the ways in which his perspectives regarding science were changing.
242 science was at the beginning of the AESP and that he thought the people in his lab Although J ohn was unable to recognize the ways in which his NOS ideas had [John] would have got so me of that aspect, kind of like the fluidity of ideas and how was actually observed as she we are never positi Dr. Carter similarly was able to express some ways in which she believed that represented in the following quotes. He had no idea that there was the community that there is in the feedback. He had a little bit of the idea that you would be on your own. (MI1) One of the things that I t hink [John] pulled together through the program was a sense of the narrowness of [his] hypothesis and [his] study and what science is very incremental and I think very few people who the process appreciate that. I think they have the fantasy that you do a brings us a little closer to some insight. (MI1)
243 ndings related to the tentativeness of science, the empirical nature of science and the social embeddedness of scientific knowledge had changed during his participation in the AESP. His interview responses revealed that his understandings related to these NOS aspects had likely changed accordingly. Although John did not believe that his NOS ideas had changed or at least was not able to identify how they had done so if they had, he did believe that his understandings of science had developed over the course of the AESP. He felt that such changes in understandings were impacted primarily by his experiences in the laboratory. I mean we learned a lot from the seminar, but I feel like I have gained more knowledge from the lab. Just because you have personal exp erience and someone e I feel like I learned more in lab. (SI2) Authentic action Rebecca had designed the project that John was working on prior to th e start of the AESP. So in that sense, John was not involved in an authentic way in the actual design of his project or the selection of the methods used to investigate his research ated in a project was preplanned. That being said, he still felt like he was making contributions. she [Rebecca] John said that when he followed procedures in the lab he followed the instructions given t follow whatever Rebecca has taught me to do. So when we measure fish, we do it precisely how she one laboratory observation, John was observed making
244 a choice about which test he wanted to perform on the fish (O3). On thi s occasion, John decided to run a test using a model of a predator and then to record the ways in which the fish responded. While John may not have had the opportunity to contribute significantly to the design of his study, the data that he was collecting were definitely of value to and usable by the members of his laboratory group. This is evident in the following interview excerpt from Rebecca. would be things like John would ask me the same question seven times and it would start to make me diligently look at notes or you know double check things and so that made I mean I will use the data. (MI2) While John was not involved to a large degree in the decision making process as th e data were collected, he had op portunities to do so as data were analyzed for his project. Rebecca described how such opportunities were m ade available to John even if he did not take them. I mean there were some places where I made [John] make decisions. Where I had preconceived ideas about the videos. Like I told [John] to watch the videos without telling [him] anything about what they wer e for or ht of that I would have thought would be useful I would John participated in a great deal of authentic action as he interpreted his results. Rebecca recognized the ownership that he to ok over his project as he did so. She talked about him being responsible for the project itself, the results that he obtained and interpreted and the way in which he organized his presentation. This really speaks to
245 the high level of authentic action that John was engaged in during his time in the laboratory But then as things kind of gelled in the last couple of weeks, and he was producing products that summarized his results, and interpreting what he had really found and not found, I think he kind of wra pped his head around it. And you could see that in his talk which he was later awarded for. Because he got it. He really got it. (MI2) Finally, John was involved in collaboration with others during his authentic participation in the laboratory. This collab oration resulted in high levels of confidence on the part of Rebecca regarding the work that John had completed. So as far as the results and the interpretations of those results, that part is laced with thing that says this happened more than that and have no way of knowing how they got to that statement, because I helped them get to that we can plug it into statistical analyses and say under this treatment this behavior happens more. (MI2) Being treated authentically Rebecca stated that she thought of John as a working and contributing member of the laboratory group. She said, when talkin John completely like an authentic member within the laboratory group. She recognized that the program participants placed i n her laboratory were high school students and she felt the need to treat them accordingly. This can be seen in the following interview quote from Rebecca. Working with high school students is definitely different than working with undergraduate students. Cause, with high school students I felt a little bit like for lack of a better word like a parent. There was a little bit more like I structure and sometimes they had to be reminded of that. (MI2)
246 That being said, Dr. Davidson treated John just like he was any other member of her laboratory group. The following quote by Dr. Davidson is an indication of how she treated John in authentic ways. There was a lot of back and forth in each of t hose times that I interacted with John about what he was doing and what he was finding and how he graduate students. (MI1) Feelings of authenticity y developed quickly over the course of the AESP. He said the following during his first semi structured interview. At first I thought I was in between [a working contributor and a visitor]. Like m back. But By the time of his second interview, John described feeling like a full working member of the laboratory group. I mean I definitely before felt like I was helping just felt like I was working for them. Now I actually feel like I am working John believed that he could work in the laboratory independently by the time of his third interview and described the ownership that he had taken over his project that resulted in him feeling genuinely interested in what he was doing. I got to the point that I could be in the lab without a nybody there because I excited and happy that I made this experiment. (I3) es me, but I feel more comfortable Finally, Dr. Davidson believed that John had developed feelings of authenticity as he worked in her laboratory. She described the ways in which John was acting and how
247 those activ ities were no different than any other activity in which a working member o f the group would participate I would say they felt like they [the AESP students in my lab] were working contributing members of the laboratory group. Both of th em and John in particular. You know they participated in most of the activities we do in the lab. They went to lab meetings. They participated in taking care of fish. They worked on their data, they collected data. These are the same things they see Rebecc Summary Out of all of the case study participants, there was greatest amount of difference responses were interpreted. John was much more comfortable talking about his beliefs about science than he was writing about them. Therefore, more weight was placed in his survey interviews than his written survey responses when examining his NOS ideas. Perhaps this speaks to a limitation of usin g open ended written surveys such as the ISS with students who are apprehensive about their writing abilities interviews and other conversations held with him and his mento rs did reveal changes in his understandings of many aspects of NOS. It is believed that the confidence that his mentors placed in him and the explicit conversations that they had with him about philosophical issues related to science in addition to the aut hentic action paired with subsequent feelings of authenticity experienced by John contributed to changes in his understandings of the empirical, social, creative and tentative nature of scientific knowledge. In regards to the growth that John experienced related to his understandings of the creative nature of science it is worth mentioning that Amy, the other program participant
248 placed with John, experienced the same growth in her understandings of this aspect. This is particularly noteworthy considering t hat Amy was also a member of the implicit seminar. In her post survey, Amy wrote the following response. Yes [scientists use creativity and imagination] because planning, experimenting and interpretation all are individualized. They are all done differentl y by different people. Example: If two people watch the same video of a fish and record the same behavior, they will for sure have different results. (S2) This result lends credence to the power of the implicit messages that John received regarding the cre ativity involved in practicing science since both he and Amy displayed similar growth when placed in the same laboratory context. Background Joseph entered the AESP with a strong interest in science and significant experiences both formally and informally as a learner of science. However, he recognized that the AESP offered him an experience in authentic research unlike any he had previously encountered. Formally, Joseph had completed two years of chemistry prior to the AESP. His experience i n advanced placement chemistry was one that he described as being very successful and that really sparked his interest in attending the AESP. Additionally, Joseph had attended at least one summer science camp between each year of high school. After his fre shman year, Joseph participated in an aquatic science camp as well as an earth science camp. Through these experiences, Joseph engaged in learning science content but was not immersed in authentic scientific research. After his sophomore year, Joseph atten ded a nuclear engineering camp at a
249 simple nuclear reactor this experience in the nuclear engineering camp as being very different from his apprenticeship in the AESP. I did work in a laboratory setting, but I worked with kids who were in high [There] it (I1) Informally, Joseph had a number of science related hobbies. He collected radioactive objects and radiation d etectors. One of his program counselors recounted an occasion where Joseph detected unsafe levels of Radon in the dormitory and brought his concern to her attention. Additionally, Joseph worked on experiments and built equipment in the backyard garage at h is house in his spare time. In his own words, inventions have ranged from an x ray machine, which I built that was very fun, to things Joseph planned to attend a four year university and major in nuclear engineering prior to attending the AESP. He also discussed wanting to continue in graduate school and get a Ph D in Nuclear fusion. At the end of the program, he stil l desired to major in nuclear engineering, but was considering other possible minors as a result of his chemical [engineering] as a possible minor, or material science as a As part of the program, Joseph enrolled in the reflective seminar. He was not paired with any other participant of the AESP in his research laboratory.
250 Laboratory description Joseph worked in a materials engineering lab oratory in the particl e sciences building of the university during his apprenticeship His laboratory was well secure and followed strict safety guidelines. All researchers and observers were required to wear laboratory safety glasses at all times when in the laboratory. Approx imately half a dozen graduate student researchers worked in the laboratory. Many of these students were from South Korea and as such, Joseph encountered a great deal of ethnic diversity in his laboratory group. The PI of the laboratory, Dr. Wu, was a visib le presence in the lab summer. George, a graduate student working with Dr. Wu, primarily mentored Joseph during the AESP. Project description rch was to develop more uniform coatings of nanoparticles in order to increase the anti reflectivity of certai n materials. Such research held implications for the efficiency of solar panels. As will be discussed in future f the ideas for his project were of his own development. The research paper that accompanied his project won the best paper award from the AESP. Changes in NOS ideas Over the course of the AESP, Joseph demonstrated positive changes in his understandings o f the creative nature of scientific knowledge formation, the subjective nature of the generation of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method as revealed through pre and post science survey s and corresponding interviews (Table 4 9). Table 5 7 contains representative excerpts from these data sources for Joseph that
251 illustrate his pre experience views and his post experience views related to each of the aforementioned NOS aspects. Self reported changes in NOS ideas and corresponding influenci ng factors Joseph was only able to self identity changes related to his understandings of the that he experienced in the laboratory while conducting his research. I And that just impressed me. (I3) explore as he saw fit. Joseph contrasted this with the way that scientific work is portrayed in science textbooks. Basically, a scientifi be like this, this and this with very little error too. Whereas in this program here, this is completely the opposite. Science is much more risky, and if change things on the fly more if you know what I mean. You can change things very quickly. (I3) In his laboratory, Joseph witnessed science that was conducted through a process of frequently modifying procedures. This was something that Joseph thought was not permissible in research science and he felt that his NOS ideas had changed accordingly. e this clear of a view as what science was per say, but again my view really was thought that they used a scientific method for virtually everything and that there were extended have a standard set of operating procedures and our methods were very changed my idea. (SI2)
252 Joseph stated that his ideas about the work that scientists had not changed, but just the Not only was Joseph able to self identify the changes in his understandings of the myth of the scientific method, but his PI mentor, Dr. Wu, was also able to recog nize that as a result of participating in the AESP, Joseph had come to learn more about how to conduct scientific research. Dr. Wu described this learning in the following ways. learned how to, once he has a project he learned how to start that, how to propose something new, how he can deign the project or how he can design the steps to testing his hypothesis. (MI1) You know, after seven weeks of doing the project, I believe he at least k nows the beginning steps from the beginning of a project. How to identify the final goal and how to design the steps to achieve the final goal. That is very important. (MI1) Joseph identified the laboratory placement as influencing his understandings of NO and their extremely relaxed attitude [were the most influential factors]. (SI2). wh ich impacted the way in which he thought about how science operates. As a member of the reflective seminar, Joseph completed a number of reflective journal prompts related to NOS ideas. However, he did not think that these influenced his perspectives in an Authentic act ion What Joseph was doing during his time in the laboratory was authentic in terms of what actually was common practice in the specific laboratory context where he was
253 placed, in this case an engineering lab oratory concept ualized according to him proposing a novel idea, being involved in developing the ways to explore his new idea, collaborating with others as he did so and then eventually being involved in the sharing of his results. In discussing the authentic action Jos eph participa ted in during the AESP, Dr. Wu described the work that typically takes place in his lab. What we usually do is we first propose a novel idea. A novel idea could be scientifically novel or technologically novel. We really as faculty we explore do both. Not only using the trial and error way to figure out, to optimize working academic field we need t o understand why. We are not only asking how to achieve this, we need to know why. (MI1) Dr. Wu described the work in his lab oratory as beginning with a novel idea. He no brand new idea. I had never thought of that before, but it seems like a very temperature Higher temperature. Seems like the temperature plays a very work. I believe we will publish this work later on when we get enough data. (MI1) Joseph was able then to suggest a n ew idea, in this case lowering the temperature of the coating process he was investigating. Additionally, Joseph himself recognized that more collaboration was involved m ean in our group right now if anyone in our group has a question about a process or ting as (I1).
254 As was previously indicated, Dr. Wu recognized that Jose be publishable in a peer mentor also described the work as being publishable and that Joseph would even be a co han likely he [Joseph] know what is. (MI2). Part of the reason that Joseph was given an opportunity to suggest a new idea in e student mentor, George, did not have an existing project to plug Joseph into. So we have a process and we were trying to think of ways to improve it. So wn as low as possible to see the effect it would ferent from what the other case study participants experienced in their work with graduate students who were farther along in their studies and had the AESP participants work on data collection and analysis for the purposes of contributing to their respect ive dissertations. Being treated authentically A large part of the reason that Joseph was able to participate in authentic action appropriate for his laboratory group was that his mentors treated him i n authentic ways during the apprenticeship Joseph did not expect that he would experience the levels of acceptance that he encountered during his time in the lab oratory my colleagues and my professor have been rather adaptive and extre mely reviewed and be reviewed and be reviewed until they were basically shot down. (I1)
255 Joseph thought that when he proposed a novel idea it would be dismissed. He discussed a specific occ asion where he was able to try one of his ideas. The other day I had the idea of actually coating on a coated wafer. So research ideas was a particular strength of his Once he recognized that, he gave Joseph the freedom he needed to explore his ideas accor dingly. George described this during his mentor interview in the following ways. Because Joseph is really good at coming up with ideas. That is one of his strengths. So if he had an idea, sometimes even if it was way out there, I would let him go after it just to see if there was something there. (MI2) I gave Joseph a lot of leeway to do what he wanted to do. But when there were things I needed him to do or wanted him to do, I had him do those things as well. So it was kind of back and forth I guess. Becau se Joseph gave Joseph a lot of slack to do what he wanted to do in the lab as long as I do either beca resources to do it. So as long as I felt he was capable to do it, I let him do it. (MI2) Joseph additionally recognized that his mentors entrusted him with a great deal of responsibility to manage the responsibility too. Like this morning I was the only person in my lab and I was able to independently on his project. I him to work authentically even when they were not there directing every step. door policy with his students that applied to Joseph as well. In other words, when Jos eph wanted to, he could discuss his project
256 with Dr. Wu and Dr. Wu treated him just as he would any other student. Dr. Wu described this policy during his mentor interview. come in here. would meet with Joseph almost every day. (MI1) Feelings of authenticity Joseph felt like he was an authentic contributor wi thin his laboratory group. He felt that he had proposed. that team actually said that they were surprised with how quickly I caught oing a very good job too and many people in the chemical engineering department thought that I was like a graduate student there because I had a few good ideas. (I1) Joseph continued in this first interview to describe that he was making a contribution to his field that even went beyond the walls of his specific laboratory. It feels like I can actually relate with these people in the lab and it seems theories and such are actually ver actually contributing to the collective science as well. (I1) In his second interview, his feelings of belonging to the laboratory shifted to being related to the pride that he felt based on the successful result s he was obtaining.
257 By the time of the third interview, Joseph described himself as a scientist and xperience the degree of equality that he ended up feeling that he had obtained through his participation in the authentic (I3). p roject. George described this during his men tor interview. I think he [Joseph] sees himself as a contributor. Like he really wanted to do work. He asked me if it was possible if he could do work ba ck home and communicate with us what he was doing, or if he could come back next summer. So he really is enthusiastic about what he is doing and what he is contributing. (MI2) Joseph described his interest in the project as being related to the discoveries that he had made and the encouragement that he had received from his mentors as a result. Like the other day I made a natural discovery, which proves my theory was correct at some point. (I2) Just to see the actual impact that I could have by doing chemical just contribute to processes as well, in addition to positive encouragement from the grad students and my PI as well. (I3) Fin ally, Joseph felt that his project produced results that were genuinely valuable to his research group and that this value was evidenced by the fact that his work was
258 my (I3). Summary Joseph entered the program with the most extensive background in science of any of the six case study participants. He was also the most wi lling to participate in actively in the work of his laboratory group. As a result, p erhaps Joseph would have had a similarly positive experience where he received supporting implicit NOS messages regardless of the par ticular laboratory in which he was plac ed able to recognize this skill set and gave him freedom to contribute epistemically to the development of his project. His mentors allowed him to perform whatever procedural tasks he desired as he explored hypotheses of his own desi student mentor, George, was a beginning graduate student and was not yet working on his dissertation project. Therefore, Joseph was able to contribute novel ideas to his project as he was not just plugged into working on a very specif ic and already existing research project. Joseph felt that the procedures he was implementing were not set in of authentic action carried implicit messages that in t his case positively impacted action held even greater weight for Joseph because he was treated authentically and as a result developed feelings of authenticity as he felt lik e a contributing member of the laboratory group. Based on the science survey and corresponding interview data supported by both participant and mentor self identified NOS changes during semi of the myth of the
259 scientific method were most positively impacted during the AESP as a result of the implicit messages he encountered in his laboratory placement. Constructed Theory The end product of constructivist grounded theory is an overarching theo ry explaining the phenomenon under investigation (Charmaz, 2006). In this case, the theory emerged from all data sources and was co constructed by the researcher and the participants in the study. For the purposes of this report, the emergent theory will b e explained in two different figures. Figure 5 2 accounts for the sources of all possible changes in NOS ideas for all thirty of the research study participants. This figure provides a macro level perspective of the entire AESP. Included in the figure is the participant learner, the explicit/reflective seminar, the program itself, the PI mentor, graduate student mentor, the laboratory environment and the research project; most of which carried explicit and/or implicit messages which may have positively or Only the explicit/reflective seminar is included in this figure as categorical data analysis revealed that this was the only seminar where participants as a whole experienced significant and positive change rega rding their NOS views. The program itself carried explicit messages regarding certain NOS aspects to the students. This was evident in the case of Tom who recognized that a hypothesis was a requirement of the program to be included in his research paper an d presentation (Table 5 4) The rest of the case study participants all had the same requirement that may have carried an explicit message regarding the myth of the scientific method. The mentors themselves could have provided explicit messages that impact understandings of NOS. This was evident in the case of John who came to better
260 appreciate the tentativeness of scientific knowledge through explicit conversations he had with Rebecca, his graduate student mentor. In observin g the way in which the PI mentor s and graduate student mentor s conducted scientific research, the participants may also have received implicit messages regarding NOS. Similarly the laboratory environment and the nature of the project itself had the potenti al to carry implicit NOS messages. The participant is represented prominently in this figure because the implicit involvement in the authentic action that was taking place therein The participant must have taken an active role within the laboratory group in order for them to construct meanings of the NOS ideas related to the activity of that group. Figure 5 3 accounts for the implicit messages that the six case study participants may have received in their laboratory environments and that may have impacted their NOS understandings. Participant engagement in authentic action was the primary avenue for conveying implicit messages about NOS in their laboratory placements. Related to this authentic action were both characteristics of the participants and the ways in which participants were treated by their mentors. Participant characteristics such as their willingness to participate, the development of feelings of a scientist identity and the personal background of the participant were related to both the action that the participant was involved in and the quality of the mentorship that they received. The relationship between authentic action and characteristics of the participant is re presented in F igure 5 3 by a double arrow, because the authentic action of the participants influenced the way that they thought of themselves within the community of scientific practice, and simultaneously their feelings of authenticity influenced how the y
261 personally conceptualized the meaningfulness of that authentic action. Participant characteristics and treatment by mentors are also related to each other in the figure by a double arrow. When a participant was treated in a positive way, as was the case with Joseph, they developed feelings of authenticity. Simultaneously, the personal characteristics of the participant determined how mentors interacted with him or her. Conclusion In summary, all six case study participants experienced growth in some a spects of NOS. These changes in NOS ideas were likely a result of complex combinations of both explicit and implicit messages received during the research apprenticeship Explicitly, students that participated in the explicit/reflective seminar and/or had mentors that engaged them in explicit NOS conversations experienced growth in their understandings of certain NOS aspects. However, some case study participants that experienced limited explicit NOS messages also exhibited positive changes in their NOS und erstandings. Such growth can be attributed to implicit messages participants received in their laboratory placements as they authentically and actively participated in scientific rese arch accompanied by the development of a scientist self identity as those who were mentoring them treated participants like authentic members of their laboratory group s
262 Table 5 1. Case study data source a bbreviations. Data Source Data Source Abbreviation Written Science Survey (Pre Experience) S1 Written Science Survey (Post Experience) S2 Science Survey Interview (Pre Experience) SI1 Science Survey Interview (Post Experience) SI2 Semi Structured Interview 1 I1 Semi Structured Interview 2 I2 Semi Structured Interview 3 I3 Observation 1 O1 Obser vation 2 O2 Observation 3 O3 Observation 4 O4 Observation 5 O5 Observation 6 O6 PI Mentor Interview MI1 Graduate Student Mentor Interview MI2
263 Table 5 2. Representative data of positive NOS c hange: Jane Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Empirical On the causes of dinosaur extinction: Theory/Law scientists believe to be true becau false yet. Laws are known to be description of something, but a law tries to explain like why something Creative hey [scientists] use their imaginations because science when modifying methods or procedures to correct their experiment. This happened in my work out correctly Subjective history, etc. is subjective. In science, there is always a right or [scientists] own personal background, that like comes into (SI2) Social Embeddedness (S1) (SI1) ( S2) Tentative also have to prove that what is already believed is wrong and that (SI1) the world was flat and now we know its round. As you get more information, your Myth of the Scientific Method scientific method if they want their research to be seen as credible. It is u niversal and ensures a correct procedure and results when method] but some are not able to (S2) really have a hypothesis, we were just kind of trying to figure out how to get the conclusion that previous research had come to [in a different way]. So
264 Table 5 3. Representative data of positive N OS c hange: Isabel Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Creative and developing a hypothesis is when [creativity/imagination] when they are interpreting their results because they have to think of all the reasons why the results came out that way. Meaning, sometimes they have to think the impossible or least possible Subjective to follow the theories that scientists in the past had They [scientists] all have the same results but they might have a different explanation on why they got the Tentative depends. Because there are some theories that are still being tests out (SI1) change in the future because of the advanced technology that always seems to be improving. For example, we on Pluto, but one day, technology will knowledge of the planet Pluto. It is no longer considered a planet because the defi nition of a planet has answering a whole bunch of new finding out new things that we never was once thought a planet and now because of what they [scientists]
265 Table 5 4. Representative d ata of positive NOS c hange: Tom Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Empirical On the differences between theories regarding dinosaur extinction: because of inaccuracy when more of the outward reaction of it that you can see that kin d of gives you an Myth of the Scientific Method now where we are really not [using summer, I am just observing the eff have to say a lower pH will blah, t observing the fact. So in elementary [school], yes, they kind of made you follow those guidelines. But as you move (SI1) hypothesis. That was sort of thrown in there, because it was a requirement on the paper. I remember asking Lisa [about a] hypothesis. She was like these days? Are we in middle cool thing to have, but I can definitely tell that like, not necessarily i n the biochemistry or chemistry lab. They when they do the project. I mean would say is mostly like our project. L ike Lisa stressed that. She was like, prediction or a more efficient thing just sort of observing what the results more of a creation for the res earch (SI2)
266 Table 5 5. Representative data of positive NOS c hange: Jennifer Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Empirical On convincing others of a theory of dino [scientists] would have to prove how other theories are incorrect and then present their theory and prove On convincing others of a theory of a lot of evidence sup porting their theory and need to disprove all other Subjective On disagreements over what caused they will ever agree because they were not there when it happened so t (S1) On disagreements over what caused because they are different people with different minds so they look at information and each come up with their own explanations for the inform Tentative philosophy, and other similar subjects, has a set answer for and will change in the future. Right now we may think that something is a certain way because of a reason, but in the future, we might know that to be Myth of the Scientific Method that you try to follow, especially when they teach you what the ou might have to start with something else and it may not lead you into the method in the order that they originally tell you, but it is going to go over a general path you do is like observe people and then there are some studies when you just scientific method] like can be changed
267 Table 5 6. Representative data of positive NOS c hange: John Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Empirical going to need proof, documents, you know articles. Like pretty t want something you assume or an argument or something everyone has been talking about. As a scientist you want something you have done, data, why do you think know a lot of scientists can be stubborn, they only believe what th stubborn. They do an experiment because they want to find out what they think they already know. So if somebody else is saying, you need really good proof to make scientist believe (SI1) you tell them, they have their own belief and unless you can show only way the believe accurate. Like for example, if I showed my results to a scientist, I just for the fact that my sample size they would want more accurate Creative [creativity/imagination] in their hypothesis, but scientists understand that experiments are our results. The kind of graph we Social Embeddedness o think it [science] reflects social and cultural values because for example many people believe in affects the way of thinking and creates different theories about the have different s (SI2) Tentative about it [the structure of an atom] anything. They just have results and never 100% sure, it ever prove, because like when I was going over my presentation I say prove, because scientists do (SI2)
268 Table 5 7. Representative data of positive NOS c hange: Joseph Aspect Pre Experience Post Experience Creative theoretical stages i n the designing of the experiment and choosing your dependent and independent variable and carry out the experiment. Observation: How to make lowe r bias observations. Reporting results: How to report results in the most efficient manner possible. For example, when I conducted my cold experiments, I needed to think about what variables I had to manipulate and to what When we coated with our 100 nanometer warmer temperature, I could have just thrown in the towel, but I decided to change variables. One time, I decided to coat at a lower temperature by chilling an entire beaker ful (SI2) Subjective differently given the societal [scientists] might have looked at thi s today, some cultures in some societies disregard his work, whereas like in our work and they do not believe in the Myth of the Scientific Method steps that a hypothesis has to go through in order to become a valid method because it is the unifying steps of procedu re that help validate method], because we just used a trial and experiment after experim ent and
269 Continuum of Authenticity Less More Jane Isabel Tom Jennifer John Joseph A: L A: M A: M A: M A: H A: H F: M F: M F: H F: H F: H F: H T: L T: M T: M T: H T: M T: H F igure 5 1. Continuum of authenticity for case study participants in terms of action (A), Feelings (F) and Treatment (T ).
270 Figure 5 2. Impacts from explicit and implicit messages on participant NOS ideas in the context of the AESP.
271 Figure 5 3. Relationships between authentic treatment, participant characteristics, action and impacts from implicit messages on participant NOS ideas in the context of the AESP. Action Design Data Collection Data Analysis Collaboration Participant Characteristics Background Feelings of authenticity Developing Science Identity Willingness to participate Impacted NOS Ideas Empirical Creative Subjective Social/Embeddedness Tentative Myth of Method Treatment Quality of Mentorship
272 CHAPT ER 6 DISCUSSION Overview of Study The present study investigated the impact of involvement in authentic scientific research experiences like research apprenticeships on participant conceptions of NOS. Historic reform documents in science education have em phasized the participation in and understanding of scientific inquiry as well as the understanding of NOS as important components of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). However, more recent frameworks in science education, which will guide the dev elopment of a new generation of science standards, contain less explicit references to NOS and have replaced the notion of inquiry with that of science and engineering practices (NRC, ould reflect 42). Even more specifically, the authors of the framework suggest that t 43). In other words, when students participate in the practices of professional science, it is believed that th ey will better appreciate certain aspects of NOS including that knowledge production in science is a result of creativity on the part of scientists. Thus in the new framework, scientific inquiry and NOS overlap in significant ways. The teaching and learni ng of NOS has traditionally taken one of two approaches: either an explicit/reflective or an implicit approach. The author of a recent review of
273 learned through explicit, reflec tive instruction as opposed to implicitly through challenges the argument made in the new framework document that engaging students in the practices of science would be an e ffective strategy to positively impact their NOS understandings. These two contrasting positions regarding the teaching and learning of NOS are highly dependent on the context in which science learning takes place. In school science where the typical labor atory activity is often very dissimilar from the actual practices of working science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004), it is not surprising that an implicit approach is not part icularly influential. However, i n canonically authentic con texts (Buxton, 2006) where students participate in practices closely resembling those of professional scientists as advocated in the new framework (NRC, 2012), it may be that implicit messages related to NOS can be quite powerful in impacting student NOS p erceptions. Sandoval (2005) argues that students hold very different practical epistemologies of science related to their own work in science compared to their conceptions of the formal epistemologies driving the work of professional scientists. Engaging s tudents in research experiences in professional science laboratories through research apprenticeships might increase the impact of the implicit messages carried through such participation on student NOS understandings as their formal and practical epistemo logies of science may overlap. Recent research suggests that in the specific context of the investigated research apprenticeship in science, formal and practical epistemologies held by participants are to a certain degree consistent with each other (Burgin & Sadler, 2012).
274 In this present study, a summer residential research apprenticeship program for high school science students served as the context for investigating the issues discussed above. The study was guided by two research questions. The first res earch question directed an exploration of the impact of three different approaches (explicit/reflective, reflective and implicit) to NOS teaching and learning implemented during the authentic research experience on participant conceptions of NOS. Through a n investigation of the second research question, influential characteristics of laboratory placements that may have implicitly and/or explicitly carried messages which impacted participant NOS ideas were identified and linked to specific NOS aspects. In t he sections that follow, a discussion of the research findings is presented. First, the main findings as they relate to the two research questions are discussed. The chapter continues with a discussion of the implications of this research and subsequent re commendations for stakeholders of authentic science research experiences outside of school and for stakeholders of traditional school science settings. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the research and concludes with suggestion s for future research investigations. Discussion of Main Findings Approaches to NOS Teaching and Learning Seminars offered in conjunction with the Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP) allowed for a comparison of three different approaches to NO S teaching and learning in the context of a research apprenticeship The three approaches investigated were an explicit/reflective, a reflective and an implicit approach. A modified version of the VNOS questionnaire (Lederman et al., 2002) the ISS was admi nistered to participants experiencing each of the three approaches both at
275 the beginning and ag ain at the end of the AESP ( Appendix B). Categorical data analysis of this instrument revealed the strength of the explicit/reflective approach over the other tw o approaches regarding impacts on participant NOS views. Specifically, understandings of the distinctions b etween theories and law s as different forms of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method were impacted positively in a statistically significant way (p< 0 .05) for the participants of the explicit/reflective seminar collectively. Additionally, participants of the explicit/reflective seminar, as a whole, displayed positive changes in their understandings of the social embeddedness of scie ntific knowledge that while not statistically significant did reveal a meaningful trend (p= 0.0588). No such significant whole group changes in any aspects of NOS were noted for either the reflective or the implicit approaches implemented in the other two investigated seminars. The NOS changes exhibited by the members of the reflective seminar were not significantly different from those exhibited by the members of the implicit seminar. Based on these findings, the approach utilized in the reflective semina r was revealed to have impacted NOS understandings no more than the approach utilized in the implicit seminar did. The quantitative findings of this study are consistent with a large portion of empirical literature in science education. For example, the f indings are compatible with the results of other studies that have compared explicit/reflective and implicit NOS approaches in a systematic way that empirically demonstrated the merits of an explicit/reflective approach in a school science context (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). No similar studies have compared various NOS
276 approaches in a context outside of a traditional school setting that would have been more representative of the AESP. However, independently the implementat ion of an explicit/reflective approach within authentic science research experiences has successfully influenced b wide variety of NOS aspects (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). Additio nally, a number of studies have demonstrated the weakness of implicit approaches in how they impact learner NOS conceptions in both school science settings (e.g. Moss, 2001; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Wu & Wu, 2010) and in authentic science contexts (e.g. Aydeniz et al., 2010; Bell et al., 2003; Hsu et al., 2010; Ryder et al., 1999). Although no whole group statistically significant changes in NOS understandings for the participants of the reflective and the implicit seminars occurred, there were a number of students in both groups who demonstrated both positive and negative changes in their understandings of certain NOS aspects (Table 4 4). Such findings speak to the potential of implicit approaches (i.e. the doing of science) to impact learner understandi ngs of NOS. In this study, the aspects of NOS that were most often positively influenced for the participants of the reflective and implicit seminars were the empirical, creative, and tentative nature of scientific knowledge as well as the myth of the scie ntific method. Case study participants from the reflective and implicit seminars who demonstrated growth in their understanding of the myth of the scientific method (e.g. Joseph) happened to be placed in lab oratorie s where the research being performed did not adhere to a strict application of the scientific method. The only NOS aspect that no participants of either the reflective or the implicit seminar understood in a more sophisticated way at the end of the AESP was the theory/law distinction.
277 Other lit erature in science education reports similar impacts from an implicit and/or reflective approach on secondary and undergraduate student NOS conceptions in the context of authentic scientific research both in and out of school. For example, one study has de monstrated that student participation in open ended inquiry experiences that share key features of authentic scientific practice has the potential to influence secondary students perceptions of the tentativeness of scientific knowledge even in traditional school science settings (Yerrick, 2000). Several empirical studies investigating implicit NOS approaches in the context of authentic science research experiences have documented gains in participant NOS conceptions primarily related to the construction of scientific knowledge (i.e. that science is subjective, socially embedded, etc.) and that scientific knowledge varies in certainty (e.g. Barab & Hay, 2001; Bleicher, 1996; Burgin et al., 2011; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Richmond & Kurth, 1999). In one research experience for undergraduate students that took an implicit approach to NOS teaching and learning, students were observed to develop more sophisticated understandings of the myth of the scientific method (Sabatini, 1997). Additionally, participants in ano ther research experience for undergraduate students came to appreciate that science is rarely conducted alone (Cartrette & Melroe Lehrman, 2011). It could be argued that implicit messages related to the subjectivity of science could come across more clearl y as a group of scientists work together to negotiate a shared interpretation of data. Tom, a case study participant in the present study, similarly developed more sophisticated understandings of the subjective NOS during his time in the AESP as he collabo rated with others when conducting his research.
278 Collectively for the participants of all three intervention seminars, the NOS aspect with the lowest instances of positive growth and the most instances of negative change was the idea that scientific knowled ge is constructed rather than discovered. Perhaps the reason that participant understandings of this aspect were so resistant to positive change was that the survey question used to assess this topic asked students whether they believed that scientific kno wledge was constructed or if they believed that it was nature of reality and truth rather than their epistemological understandings of how knowledge is generated in scienc e. The level of philosophical abstraction assumed in the question may not have been appropriate to use in order to gauge the levels of It is clear then that impacts from an implicit approach on certain NOS understandings are possible when students participate in authentic scientific research experiences. But what exactly influences these understandings? What implicit messages do learners receive when they participate in the practices of authentic science? What explicit messages do learners receive from their mentors in specific laboratory contexts? The six case study participants that were interviewed and observed in their laboratory placements exhibited growth in some of their NOS und erstandings. The analysis of these data sources shed light on some of the reasons for this growth. Attention is now turned to the implicit and the explicit messages received by the six case study participants during the AESP. Implicit and Explicit NOS Mes sages The participants in the current study encountered both implicit and explicit NOS messages coming from many different sources during the AESP. At times, as was the
279 case with Jennifer, these implicit and explicit messages positively reinforced each oth er. Jennifer was a member of the explicit/reflective seminar where she received explicit NOS messages through purposively designed activities and discussions. She also spent time in a laboratory environment where she received implicit messages through the authentic action in which she participated. For Jennifer, these implicit messages were related to the development of her understandings of the subjective nature of scientific knowledge and the myth of the scientific method. However, Jane, also a member of the explicit/reflective seminar, experienced the same explicit NOS messages as Jennifer outside of the laboratory, but encountered implicit NOS messages in her laboratory placement that seemed to work against the target NOS ideas. Jane did not participate in high levels of authentic action in her laboratory and the science in practice that she observed was performed in a very isolated rather than collaborative way. However, the explicit messages Jane received in the seminar were observed to overpower any ne gative implicit messages she may have picked up in her laboratory placement because many of her NOS ideas were positively impacted during the AESP. than was her laboratory experience. Other case study participants received explicit NOS messages during the AESP from sources other than the explicit/reflective seminar. For example, Tom described how the program itself required his paper to be set up in a way that was aligned w ith the traditional scientific method. He then had a discussion with his graduate student mentor about how parts of the scientific method, namely the hypothesis, were not required and often not used in research chemistry. In this case, Tom received explici t messages
280 about the myth of the scientific method from both the program itself and from his mentor that were at odds with each other (Table 5 4) John was another participant who received explicit NOS messages from his graduate student mentor. John had co nversations with his mentor that explicitly focused on the uncertainty of scientific were members of the implicit seminar that collectively experienced no significant grow th in NOS understandings. In research exploring the effects of authentic research experiences on NOS ideas, Bell and colleagues (2003) found no substantial impact of a program using an implicit approach to NOS teaching. However, one student who, like Tom a nd John, engaged in explicit NOS conversations with her mentor, demonstrated gains in her understandings of certain NOS aspects. This student developed more sophisticated understandings of the creativity involved in science when accounting for multiple int erpretations from the same set of data (Bell et al., 2003). Other case study participants (i.e. Isabel and Joseph) experienced very few explicit NOS messages during the AESP. For them, changes in NOS understandings were attributed to the implicit message s that they received primarily from their laboratory placements. In the case of Joseph, the implicit messages that he received were powerful and influenced his ideas regarding the creative nature of science, the subjective nature of science and the myth of the scientific method. For him, these implicit NOS messages were powerful in that they accompanied authentic action, authentic treatment and the subsequent development of feelings of authenticity as s participation in scientific
281 research. Authenticity as an avenue for implicit NOS messages will be discussed in the following section. Authenticity in Research Science Drawing on the framework described by Buxton (2006), the AESP was recognized to be rep resentative of a highly canonically authentic context for the practice of scientific research. In canonical authenticity, the key features of authenticity are determined not by the learners themselves, but by an external entity, in this case professional s cience. The AESP was not designed to allow participants to construct their own meaning of what it means to practice science, but rather to immerse them in action that mirrored the actual practices of professional science in order to introduce them to the e stablished features of that community. According to this framework, the degree to which the AESP was authentic for an individual participant was directly related to how closely their experience in their specific laboratory context reflected the actual expe riences of the working members of that laboratory. These laboratory group members were typically graduate student researchers. The researcher embedded himself in the laboratory contexts of six case study participants of the AESP in order to understand the workings of each context and how the messages received by the participants therein may have influenced their NOS perceptions. Through an analysis of a variety of data sources (Table 3 5) a clear picture emerged regarding the levels of authenticity experien ced by each of these participants and how that authenticity was related to implicit NOS messages that may have influenced their NOS ideas. An application of constructivist grounded theory techniques guided the analysis process (Charmaz, 2006). Three theore tical themes that were grounded in the data were generated through this analysis and were used to categorize
282 the authenticity experienced by each case study participant in their respective laboratory placements. These themes were the action, the treatment and the feelings that were both observed and self described by the case study participants and their mentors. Figure 5 3 provides a visual representation of how these three themes interacted with each other to influence participant NOS ideas. Each theme wi ll now be discussed in turn. Action Situated learning theory suggests that learning takes place as learners participate legitimately in the actions of a group sharing a specific cultural identity (Lave & Wenger, 1991). For each case study participant, tha t group consisted primarily of graduate student members within a research science laboratory team. The authenticity of the action taken by the case study participant was classified according to how legitimately it represented the normal practices of the gr aduate student assigned to work with the participant. These normal practices included but were not limited to the development of research questions, the design of investigative procedures, the collection and interpretation of data, the construction of conc lusions and the reporting of those findings through a variety of means including research papers and presentations. An additional aspect of the action occurring in these canonically authentic contexts was the collaboration between graduate students and PI of the laboratory. Learner participation in the development of research questions and in the design of investigative procedures can be described as epistemic involvement. In this study, only two case study participants (John and Joseph) were involved to a ny degree in the design of their respective studies. Neither participant was a member of the explicit/reflective seminar and both experienced growth in their understandings of
283 certain NOS aspects. One NOS aspect that both John and Joseph came to better app reciate was the idea that the construction of scientific knowledge is a creative process. Perhaps engaging participants epistemically in the design of a scientific research investigation carries with it implicit positive messages regarding the creative NOS Although one previous study did not link epistemic involvement to desired outcomes of research apprenticeship experiences (Burgin et al., 2011), other research has placed an importance on this type of action in the context of an authentic research experi ence in science particularly as it relates to the development of scientific reasoning (e.g. Hay & Barab, 2011; Ryder & Leach, 1999). Bell and colleagues (2003) similarly in a research a pprenticeship creative NOS when experiencing an implicit approach to NOS in the context of an authentic research experience in science. Part of the reason for the limited epistemic involve ment of the other fou r case study participants of this current study was that they were engaging in scientific research that was ongoing at the beginning of the AESP. They were therefore not engaged in the development of their respective research projects. In the previously mentioned study that did not link epistemic involvement to gains in NOS understandings, mentors and participants held explicit conversations regarding why such epistemic involvement was not a realistic possibility (Burgin et al., 2011). Given the lengthy timeframe of many authentic research projects and the limited time available during a summer research apprenticeship program it is unrealistic to expect all participants to be epistemically involved in each stage of their research projec t from the development of a question to the arrival at a conclusion. In the present
284 study, perhaps if mentor scientists and/or graduate students had clearly explained the history of the development of the research project to the participants placed with th em, these participants would have had a better appreciation for the creativity that was contributions to early stages of the research process. One touted benefit of participati ng in authentic research experiences in science is & Hay, 2001). With the possible exception of Jane, each of the case study participants were eng aged in collect ing data that were both meaningful and valuable to the laboratory group of which they were a part. The case study participants were subsequently involved i n making interpretations of those data in order to arrive at conclusions. Such authentic action may h ave been related to the gains in understanding of the empirical nature of scientific knowledge in the cases of Tom and John, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge in the cases of Jennifer, Jane, Isabel and Joseph and the tentative nature of scienti fic knowledge in the cases of Jane, Isabel and John. Bleicher (1996) reported similar impacts on participant NOS understandings as they worked with their mentors to interpret data. These impacts were particularly powerful when the mentors of the participan ts held sophisticated NOS views. Each case study participant experienced a level of collaboration in their research placement when it came to making decisions regarding how to best report their findings. This was particularly noticeabl e in the cases of Je nnifer and John. Jennifer experienced growth in her understandings of the subjective nature of scientific knowledge that could be linked to the levels of collaboration that she experienced in her laboratory placement.
285 Additional research has indicated that collaboration is an important experiential aspect in research apprenticeship experiences that may be linked to desired outcomes of participation such as the development of informed NOS understandings (Burgin et al., 2011). Although other research has indi cated discrepancies between how science in action was portrayed in the laboratory and how learners presented their research findings (Van Eijck et al., 2009; Hsu et al., 2010), no such disconnect was noted in this study. For example, both Jennifer and John attended regular laboratory group meetings them were observed to give presentations that were very much like those that were given in their group meetings and that accuratel y reflected what occurred in their laboratory settings. Additionally, Jennifer and her mentor were observed as they collaborated on how to create a research poster. Jennifer then took this advice and as a result, her poster closely resembled others that we re displayed in her laboratory setting. In summary, the case study participants in this study were engaged in action that represented the typical actions engaged in by their graduate student mentors to varying degrees. This authentic action carried with i t implicit messages regarding certain NOS aspects namely the emp irical, creative, subjective and tentative nature of scientific knowledge in addition to the myth of the scientific method Treatment/mentorship The implicit NOS messages received through auth entic action took on greater meaning for the case study participants when the ways in which their mentors treated them were likewise genuine. Although Barab and Hay (2001) described authentic experiences in science as opportunities to work side by side wit h expert scientists, in the context of the AESP, like the setting investigated by Bleicher (1996), the mentorship
286 of the case study participants was facilitated primarily by graduate students. The quality of this mentorship was viewed to be authentic if th e graduate student mentor valued both the participant and the work that they were contributing in ways that were similar to how they and their work were valued by the PI that they were working under. Of all the case study participants, Jane was treated in the least authentic way by her mentors This treatment was at least partially a result of her unwillingness to participate within the laboratory group graduate student mentor recognized contributions that Jane m ade to their research. Additionally, they did not trust the quality of the data that she collected. Jane subsequently did not experience high levels of authentic action as her mentors did not allow her to engage in such activity. Jane is contrasted with Jo seph whose graduate student mentor and PI recognized the strengths that he brought into the lab and valued his findings. This is evident in that Joseph was going to be included as a co author on multiple scientific research articles by his PI in the future recognized the contributions that he could make to the development of his research project and allowed him the opportunity to do so, he engaged in more authentic action ories account for why tr eatment is linked to action on F igure 5 3. When students were treated authentically, they were more likely to engage in authentic action that carried implicit NOS messages. Feelings/identity Four of the six case study participants in this study (Tom, Jennifer, John and Joseph) developed strong identities of themselves as authentic participants of science within their laboratory placements during the AESP. These identities will be described as science identities. A wealth of empirica l literature supports the findings of the current
287 study related to the development of science identities. For example, engaging in the practices of science has been observed to impact the development of a positive science identity even in the context of a Barton, 2008). Tan and Barton (2008) describe in particular how girls develop fluid science identities in school science settings as they engage in the practices of science. Outside of school settings, science identities of girls were impacted as they worked with professional scientists and had opportunities to see how these scientists were genuine human beings who were both personal and sociable (Farland Smith, 2009; 2012). Research related to authentic research experiences in science for undergraduate students reports that participants were able to think and work in ways that were similar to those of scientists (Seymour et al., 2004) and that the accompanying science identity development resulted in inc reased confidence to work in research laboratories (Hunter et al., 2007). Like the results of the research cited above, the case study participants in the current study developed positive science identities as they worked with professional researchers in laboratory contexts. Figure 5 3 illustrates how participant characteristics such as authentic feelings related to science identities were connected to both the ways in which the participants were treated by their mentors and the action that they engaged in In the case of Joseph, the graduate students fully included him in every aspect of their laboratory culture. As a result, Joseph developed a positive science self identity to the point where he viewed himself as a scientist. Tom, likewise, was treated in highly authentic ways that impacted his science identity. He recognized that the work that he was doing was exactly like what any other graduate student would do in his laboratory.
288 In that regard, his action influenced his feeling that he was an authentic member of the laboratory group. Additionally, when participants like Tom, Jennifer, John and Joseph developed strong science identities, the action that they engaged in took on new levels of meaning. They began to recognize that the work that they were do ing was genuine and valuable. When this happened, the implicit messages carried through such authentic action were quite powerful Implications For Authentic Research Experiences There are a number of implication s from this research study for authentic research experiences designed for high school learners. One implication regards the strength of the explicit/reflective approach to NOS teaching and learning over the other two, more implicit, approaches that were i nvestigated. Research has demonstrated the superior benefits of the explicit/reflective approach when compared to an implicit approach in a traditional school science setting, but no study other than the current one has systematically compared multiple app roaches to NOS teaching and learning in a setting like the AESP (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2008; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). Other research has demonstrated the effectiveness of an explicit/reflective approach in the context of authentic research experie nces but has not compared the students participating in such an approach to students experiencing a different approach (e.g. Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). Although the categorical data analysis revealed that the participants of the explici t/reflective seminar experienced significant growth in their understandings of NOS when compared to the participants of the other two seminars, it also revealed that not all of the
289 distinction between theory and law and the myth of the scientific method were significantly impacted. The implication of this finding is that certain aspects of NOS may be more likely to be impacted as a result of an explicit approach in this contex t. It is true that members of both the reflective and the implicit seminar experienced positive change in their under standings of many NOS aspects ( Table 4 4). However, many of the students in these same seminars also experienced negative change in their NOS understandings. It follows that, in this context, implicit messages received through laboratory placements had the power to influence conceptions of NOS both positively and negatively. Although, no case study participants exhibited negative change in t heir understandings of NOS, those that exhibited positive change who were members of either the reflective or the implicit seminar also experienced supportive laboratory environments. Within these supportive environments, authentic action when combined wit h authentic treatment and/or the development of a science identity could be linked to positive changes in NOS ideas. The benefits of being placed in supportive laboratory environments that are collaborative, involve learners epistemically in the research p rocess and allow for NOS conversations to occur between mentor scientists and the learner have been reported elsewhere and add strength to this implication (Bell et al., 2003; Burgin et al., 2011). An additional implication of this research for programs l ike the AESP is that in the context of authentic research through apprenticeships isolated reflection through journal entries has no perceived benefits apart from explicit NOS activities in impacting NOS understandings. Joseph clearly articulated that for him, it was the action occurring in his laboratory that impacted his understandings and not the reflective journal entries.
290 Isabel reported that through responding to the journal prompts she maintained nave views about the myth of the scientific method. Categorical data analysis similarly revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between changes in NOS understandings for the members of the reflective and the implicit seminar s Therefore, reflection alone was not a particularly effect ive way to achieve increased levels of sophistication in the NOS understandings of participants of an authentic research experience in science. Finally, a large number of students experienced no change in their understandings of NOS as revealed through th e ISS (Table 4 4). This speaks to the large resistance to changes in NOS understandings held by high school students even in highly authentic contexts like research apprenticeship programs For Science Education Research has demonstrated that implicit mes sages carried through participation in inquiry based activities in traditional school science classrooms are not particularly effective in influencing participant NOS understandings (e.g. Moss, 2001; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 200 2). In contrast to these findings, the current study implies that implicit messages carried through authentic research experiences in supportive laboratory environments do have the potential to impact NOS ideas. Such a finding is consistent with other empi rical studies demonstrating positive impacts from implicit messages on certain NOS ideas in the context of authentic scientific research (e.g. Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Richmond & Kurth, 1999). This speaks to differences in the canonical authenticity between school science inquiry experiences and professional scientific research (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004).
291 Perhaps if school science laboratory work were more representative of professional science, then implicit NOS messages would be mor e influential. A final implication for science education concerns the assessment of NOS. For the case study participants, written survey responses were not always consistent with verbal elaborations on those responses given through open ended survey interv iews (Table 4 9). John in particular discussed being intimidated by the written survey and felt like it was a test. In this study, interview data were prioritized over written data when rating participant NOS ideas. Interview data in this case were richer and much more detailed than many of the brief written responses given on the survey itself. Survey data collected through instruments such as the VNOS then carry some limitations. If students are given opportunities to expand upon their written responses, then a clearer picture of their NOS ideas can potentially emerge. Recommendations For Developers of Authentic Research Experiences The implications just discussed lead to a number of recommendations for the developers of authentic research experiences in science. The first recommendation would be for developers of authentic research experiences to clearly articulate the goals of their program and then to design programmatic features accordingly in order to reach those goals. In the case of the AESP, the de velopment of sophisticated NOS understandings was a goal that the administrators of the program clearly expressed to the researcher, but was not one that was explicitly stated on any program publications or marketing materials. Even though a goal of the pr ogram was to positively impact participant NOS ideas, no features of the program were explicitly designed in order to do so prior to the development of the explicit/reflective intervention seminar for the
292 current study. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that this program and others like it provide explicit/reflective NOS opportunities to participants through similarly designed seminars. However, in some authentic research programs in science, the opportunity to design an explicit/refle ctive seminar may not exist. In these cases it becomes increasingly important that students be placed in highly supportive laboratory environments. Even when explicit/reflective seminars are available, participants still should be intentionally placed in d esirable laboratory contexts in order to avoid mixed messages about NOS. Laboratory placements ought to engage the participant in authentic action including but not limited to epistemic involvement in the research process as well collaboration within a lab orato ry group team. Additionally, graduate student mentors should go out of their way to treat the participant in the same way that they themselves are treated by the PI of the laboratory. Participants may then develop positive science identities which may further impact the ways in which they view the work that they are engaging in and subsequently may strengthen the positive implicit NOS messages that they receive through such participation in authentic action. Mentors should also be explicit with their s tudents about the history of the project that they are working on. In this way, the participant may come to appreciate the creativity that was involved in the development of the project even if he or she was not around to contribute epistemically to its de sign. It is also recommended that mentor scientists and graduate students have explicit NOS conversations with their students that may facilitate reflection on the research that they are engaged in and how it is representative of the ways in which
293 knowledg e is developed in science. Research has demonstrated the importance of explicit NOS conversations between mentors and participant learners working in their laboratories (Bell et al., 2003; Bleicher, 1996). When the development of NOS is a goal of an resea rch apprenticeship program, it is recommended that the facilitators of the program recognize the important role that is played by the mentor scientists and graduate students in achieving this goal. An orientation meeting could be held for mentors prior to start of the program in order to facilitate related conversations. Such an orientation would provide an opportunity to discuss findings of empirical research indicating influential features of laboratory environments that may carry implicit NOS messages. M aterials summarizing research findings could be distributed to mentors in this meeting. Mentors could then brainstorm ways in which they could provide both positive explicit and implicit NOS messages to the participants who would be placed with them in the ir laboratories. Part of the purposes of such an orientation would be to raise awareness of the importance of authenticity within laboratory placements and to allow for the developers of the program and the mentor scientists and graduate students to create a plan for maximizing the authenticity experienced by the program participants placed within their laboratories. Specifically, discussions related to authentic forms of action that students can meaningfully participate in would take place in this orientat ion meeting. The importance of the participant understanding the ways in which their research project developed would be stressed particularly when the participant would be unable to participate in these early stages of research. Additionally, conversation s related to the way in which mentors treat students and how the quality of that treatment is related to the
294 development of science identities would be held. Finally, ways in which mentors could recognize the strengths and abilities that participants bring with them to the program would be discussed. For example, mentors could be provided with pre experience NOS assessments of the participants placed with them in order to recognize and target certain NOS aspects to have about which to hold explicit conversa tions with the participants. Mentors could also be provided with application materials from the participants placed with them in order to familiarize themselves with the prior experiences of the participants. This would help the mentors to identify the int erests of the participants and their entering abilities to contribute meaningfully to the work of the laboratory group. For School Science A few recommendations are also suggested for school science based on the findings of this study. The first is for sch ool science laboratory experiences to be modified in order to more accurately reflect the workings of professional scientists. The typical student in a school science setting will most likely never have an opportunity to participate in a program like the A ESP. It is important therefore for them to have opportunities to engage in the practices of professional science while in traditional science settings. Students should be given opportunities to pose ill structured questions and design scientific investigat ions to explore those questions in the traditional science classroom. It is recognized that the institutional constraints of a typical secondary science classroom, such as the pressures faced to prepare students for high stakes assessments by covering mass ive amounts of scientific content in a short amount of time, make it challenging to implement full open ended inquiry experiences regularly during an academic school year. Therefore it is recommended that students have such
295 an experience at least once a ye ar. Additionally, students should be engaged in collaboration and discourse practices such as argumentation that model the interactions of working professional scientists. Students in traditional settings should also have opportunities to collect data that serve a valuable and meaningful purpose to the scientific community. Student Science Partnerships (SSP s ) such as Forest Watch and Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) could facilitate such relationships between scientists an d traditional classroom science learners (Lawless & Rock, 1998; Means, 1998). It is recognized that traditional laboratory experiences that do not engage the learner in the full authentic range of scientific practices still serve a valuable purpose. Even if a student is conducting a chemistry laboratory activity that has a known outcome, the results of which are not meaningful to the larger scientific community, that student may still gain valuable content knowledge and learn important science process skil ls. In occasions such as this, it is recommended that the science teacher be explicit about the purposes of the activity and how it does not accurately reflect the actual workings of a professional scientist. Limitations Although limitations of the study were identified prior to data collection and discussed in Chapter 1 a few limitations emerged during the research process that warrant discussion here. The first of these limitations regards the approaches employed in each of the three seminars. Although observations were conducted in each seminar to ensure that NOS ideas were only being explicitly addressed in the explicit/reflective seminar, there was no feasible way for the researcher to be present at all times during all three of the seminars as they w ere being run concurrently. Therefore, there is a
296 chance, albeit a small one, that NOS aspects were addressed to a certain degree in the reflective and in the implicit seminars. An orientation meeting held with the graduate instructors of all three seminar s where they were briefed on the design of the study most likely accounted for this limitation. The results of the categorical data analysis indicated that only understandings of the distinctions between theory and law in science, the myth of the scientif ic method and possibly of the social embedded nature of scientific knowledge were positively impacted in significant ways for the members of the explicit/reflective seminar as a whole. It is not known if this impact was a result of these aspects being less resistant to change for the participants or if the instructors of the seminar just did a better job explicitly addressing these three NOS aspects in comparison to the others. There were also limitations to the use of the ISS as the sole means to assess p articipant NOS ideas. First, only the case study participants were interviewed about their responses. The analysis of these interviews was only partially consistent with an analysis of the written science surveys themselves. Therefore the results of the ca tegorical data analysis of the written survey responses are somewhat tentative. The only way to account for this would have been to conduct survey interviews with all 30 of the participants. Secondly, there were limitations to the assigning of ratings to t he responses given on the ISS Although a rubric was developed to as sist in the rating process ( Appendix F), two independent raters still had to discuss each response to each survey in order to reach consensus. Recent efforts have been made to develop a va lidated coding rubric for use with the VNOS (Abd El Khalick, Belarmino & Summers,
297 2012). The use of such a rubric may have increased the trustworthiness of the claims made in this report. Additionally, the case study participants were selected very early during the data collection process based on a preliminary analysis of responses from the first administration of the Ideas about Science Survey. The NOS ratings used to make decisions regarding whom to include as a case study participants were based on San aspects that were ultimately used. It is uncertain if a different set of case study participants would have been selected if a different coding rubric had been utilized. A re lated limitation is that observational and semi structured interview data were only collected with the six case study participants, none of whom exhibited negative changes in their NOS understandings. There is therefore no evidence for what factors of spec ific laboratory placements if any negatively influenced the NOS understandings of the non case study participants who experienced such change. The only way to account for this would have been to conduct all methods of data collection and analysis with all 30 of the participants. Finally, the observational data collected from the six case study participants was limited in that often, as was the case with Jane and Isabel, there was not much to observe in the laboratory. More time spent in each laboratory dur ing occasions when research practices were actually being conducted would have increased the understandings regarding the authenticity of each laboratory placement. Suggestions for Future Research The results of this study indicate a need for future resea rch in a number of related areas. First, it is unclear how the effectiveness of the explicit/reflective approach
298 employed in this context would compare to the same approach utilized in a traditional school science classroom. In other words, how would the c hange in NOS understandings compare between students experiencing the explicit/reflective activities in the context of the AESP and in a school science context? Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of explicit/reflective approaches in school setting s (e.g. Khishfe, 2008), but would this effectiveness actually increase when students are given a uniquely authentic research experience like a research apprenticeship on which to reflect? Secondly, it would be interesting to investigate how secondary lear ners would receive implicit messages through school science inquiry activities that were modified to more accurately reflect the practices of working scientists. Perhaps if traditional laboratory activities were restructured to allow for more authentic act ion on the part of the learner including the proposing of ill structured research questions and the opportunity to investigate those questions through means other than the scientific method, implicit messag es would be more influential tha n research has dem onstrated them to be in school science settings (Khishfe & Abd El Khalick, 2002). Third, future research could explore other means of assessing learner NOS understandings through focused observations and interview protocols that are more highly situated w Such assessments would perhaps d o a better job assessing practical epistemologies (Sandoval, 2005) of science held by participants of research apprenticeship programs. These practical epis temologies could then be compared to formal epistemologies revealed through traditional NOS instruments such as the VNOS in order to determine if practical and formal epistemologies of science truly overlap in this specific context.
299 Fourth, it would be us eful to explore the persistence of the NOS gains experienced by the participants of this research study over time. Stake and Mares (2005) demonstrated that the confidence to do science on the part of participants of a research experience in science actuall y increased upon their return to the traditional classroom. It is unknown if a similar increase in NOS understandings would occur as the participants had more time to reflect on their experiences in programs such as the AESP. Fifth, it would be beneficial to investigate the NOS views of the mentor scientists and graduate students to look at how the sophistication of their perspectives relates to the implicit messages received by the participants placed in their laboratories. Related research could be done to investigate the impacts of professional development opportunities designed for these mentor scientists on the NOS views of the participants. Such research might carry with it implications regarding the importance of NOS instruction embedded in teacher e ducation programs, if sophisticated NOS understandings of mentor scientists are related to the development of informed NOS understandings for the participants of authentic research experiences who are placed in their laboratories. Conclusion The results o f this study challenge some of the existing research in science education. For example, the results do indicate the potential for implicit messages carried through participation in highly authentic experiences to impact learner conceptions of NOS. Lederman (2007) suggests that empirical literature demonstrates conclusively that implicit approaches are not as effective as explicit approaches. Similarly, Bell and colleagues (2003) report that the impacts from an implicit approach on participant NOS ideas were negligible in a context very similar to the AESP.
300 However, in the present study, the implicit messages received by the six case study participants were rather effective in influencing their understandings of certain NOS ideas. Additionally, the findings of this study show that certain NOS understandings such as the empirical nature of scientific knowledge and the creative nature of scientific knowledge are more likely to be influenced by implicit messages than are understandings of the differences between theories and laws in science. Such a result speaks to the idea that NOS approaches are not equally effective in influencing all aspects of NOS, and that the most powerful way to influence such understandings may be through a combination of explicit and im plicit approaches. This research suggests that students should be explicitly introduced to NOS aspects and then provided with authentic experiences practicing science on which to reflect on those aspects. These experiences have the potential to carry with them implicit NOS messages that may support explicit messages received through an explicit/reflective approach. This study demonstrates that such a model is effective in the context of authentic research experiences in science. In closing this study suppo rts the suggestions made in recent reform documents to increasingly engage students in the practices of science and that in so doing, students may develop more sophisticated understandings of the ways in which knowledge is developed in science (NRC, 2012). Based on the findings of existing literature and the results of this study, learning science by doing science is most effective when the activity is canonically authentic. Therefore, students should have experiences engaging in authentic scientific resear ch both in and out of school. Future
301 empirical research is needed to further substantiate this claim. A number of specific research inquires are suggested that could guide the science education community as they explore these important issues.
302 APPENDIX A REFLECTIVE JOURNAL PROMPTS Week 2: (2 seminars) Prompt 1: Describe the culture of your laboratory environment including the personalities and background of the members of your lab group. Do you think this culture influences the work that takes place in your lab? If so, explain why you think this way and how you think the work is influenced. If you do not think that the culture of the lab influences the work, explain why. (Construction of scientific knowledge) Prompt 2: Explain how y ou have observed cooperation, collaboratio n and/or competition in your laboratory placement. You may have observed this within your laboratory and/or in how your laboratory interacts with those outside of your laboratory. How do these aspects of your labor atory placement contribute to the generation of scientific knowledge? (Construction of scientific knowledge) Week 3: (2 seminars) Prompt 3: How are you collecting data in your lab? How do you think other scientists would perform similar research to your own? Explain using specific examples. (Diversity of scientific methods) Prompt 4: Are you using the scientific method to answer the question that is driving your research? Why or why not? Which parts of the scientific method are you using? Would you have to use the scientific method in your research? Could there be other ways of answering your question? Explain using specific examples. (Diversity of scientific methods) Week 4: (2 seminars) Prompt 5: What is a scientific theory? What is a scientific law ? How confident are you of your definitions? Are any theories and/or laws involved in your personal scientific research? What are they? How certain are they? Are one of the two forms of scientific knowledge more certain than the other? Explain (Forms of sc ientific knowledge) Prompt 6: What is a model in science? Are there different types of models in science? Explain. Have you relied on any models in your personal research project? If so, explain them and why you have relied on models. If not, why? How cer tain are the models you are using? Explain. (Forms of scientific knowledge)
303 Week 5: (2 seminars) Prompt 7: What is an observation in science? What is an inference in science? Provide examples of both form your own project. What are the implications of observation and inference on the certainty of scientific knowledge? (Forms of scientific knowledge Scientific knowledge varies in certainty ) Prompt 8: How certain are you of the results you are obtaining in your personal research project? Explain the reason for your response with specific examp les from your research project. What might limit the certainty of your results? Is there anything other than human error that may impact the certainty of your results? Explain. (Scientific knowledge varies in cer tainty) Week 6: (1 seminar) Prompt 9: Do you think the results of your project might one day be understood differently than you understand them now ? Explain why or why not. Can there be multiple interpretations of your data? Explain why or why not. How often are multiple explanations of the same evidence possible in science? Explain your answer. (Scientific knowledge varies in certainty) Prompt 10: I would like you to spend some time reflecting on the reflection process. What if any was the impact of re sponding to these prompts? Did you find this writing process to be valuable? In what ways?
304 APPENDIX B IDEAS ABOUT SCIENCE SURVEY AND FOLLOW UP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Instructions Please answer each of the following questions. You can use all the space prov ided and the backs of the pages to answer a question. Some questions have more than one part. Please make sure you write answers for each part. the following question s. I am only interested in your ideas relating to the following questions. 1. (a) What is science? (b) What do scientists do? How do they accomplish this work? 2. What makes science (or a scientific discipline such as physics, biology, etc.) different from o ther subject/disciplines (art, history, philosophy, etc.)? (Forms of scientific knowledge) 3. Some think scientific knowledge is constructed. Others think it is discovered. Which do you agree with and why? (Construction of scientific knowledge) 4. Scientists p roduce scientific knowledge. Do you think this knowledge may change in the future? Explain your answer and give an example. (Construction of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty) 5. (a) Scientists agree that about 65 millions of ye ars ago the dinosaurs became extinct. However, scientists disagree about what caused this to happen. Why do you think they disagree even though they all have the same information? (b) If a scientist wants to persuade other scientists of their theory of di nosaur extinction, what do they have to do to convince them? Explain your answer. (Construction of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty) 6. In order to predict the weather, weather persons collect different types of information. Of ten they produce computer models of different weather patterns. (a) Do you think weather persons are certain (sure) about the computer models of the weather patterns? (b) Why or why not? (Forms of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in cert ainty)
305 7. The model of the inside of the Earth shows that the Earth is made up of layers called the crust, upper mantle, mantle, outer core and the inner core. Does the model of the layers of the Earth exactly represent how the inside of the Earth looks? Explain your answer. (Forms of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty) 8. The previous two questions asked about scientific models. What is a scientific model? 9. they do? 10. Scientists try to find answers to their questions by doing investigations / experiments. Do you think that scientists use their imaginations and creativity when they do these investigations / expe riments? (a) If NO explain why. (b) If YES in what part(s) of their investigations (planning, experimenting, making observations, analysis of data, interpretation, reporting results, etc.) do you think they use their imagination and creativity? Give examples if you can. (Construction of scientific knowledge, Diversity of scientific methods) 11. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate your answer with an example. (Forms of scientific knowledge) 12. Science textboo ks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) with electrons (negatively charged particles) orbiting that nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine what an atom looks like? (Forms of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty) 13. After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g., atomic theory, evolution t heory), does the theory ever change? Explain and give an example. (a) If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why. Defend your answer with examples. (b) If you believe that scientific theories do change, explain why theories chang e. Explain why we bother to learn scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples. (Forms of scientific knowledge, Scientific knowledge varies in certainty)
306 14. Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is, science reflect s the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced. Others claim that science is universal. That is, science transcends national and cultural boundaries and is not affected by social political, and philosophical values, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced. (a) If you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why. Defend your answer with examples. (b) If you believe that science is universal, explain why. Defend your answer with examples. (Construction of scientific knowledge) 15. (For 2 nd administration of survey). How often did you talk about the things on this questionnaire with your mentor during this experience? Describe the specif ics of any conversation you may have had. 16. (For 2 nd administration of survey). How often did you talk about the things on this questionnaire with your peers outside of your seminar group during this experience? Describe the specifics of any conversation yo u may have had. Science survey follow up interview protocol (Adapted from Bell et al., 2003; Abd El Khalick, 1998). 1. What did you mean by your response to question number (refers to a specific question on the questionnaire)? 2. After Question 1 2 : Define similar or dissimilar? 3. After Question 1 5 : How much evidence is enough to prove a certain claim? 4. After Question 1 9 : Do all scientists use a specific step wise procedure in conducting science? Please elaborate. 5. After Question 1 11 : In terms of status and significance of scientific knowledge, how would you rank theory and law? 6. After Question 1 13 : Why do we invest time and energy to grasp these theories? Which comes first observation or theory? 7. After Q uestion 1 14 : Do political/social/cultural differences influence the interpretation of scientific results? How so? 8. Has your mentor ever talked to you about the kinds of things on this questionnaire? Please explain.
307 APPENDIX C CASE STUDY SEMI STRUCTUR ED INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS Semi structured Interview Protocol 1 (Case study students). Week 3 1. AESP ? (e.g. science camps, internships, parent is a scientist, science fair, etc.) 2. What kin d of science courses have you taken in high school? Do you feel that these courses have prepared you for this experience? In what ways? Explain 3. What are your plans after high school? If you are going to college, what would you like to study? What professio ns are you considering? Do you see yourself studying/doing/participating in science in any way? What has influenced these plans? 4. Can you tell me about the work that you are doing as a part of this experience? What kind of research goes on in the lab you ar e working in? What kinds of lab processes and/or equipment are you using? Do you find this work interesting? Why or Why not? 5. Would you say that you feel like a working contributor in the lab, an outsider just visiting, or somewhere in between? Explain. 6. How do you feel about your abilities to work in the lab? Do you feel comfortable using the equipment and procedures of the lab you are working in? Do you have a good understanding of the science content you are investigating? What has contributed to your resp onses? 7. Have you had any role in determining the kind of research that you are doing? existing project? Explain your responses. 8. Describe the nature of collaboration in your laboratory group. Was this what you were expecting? Explain. 9. 10. Have any specific aspects of your experience influenced the way you think about science and the work that scientists do? Explain these aspects. 11. Is there an ything else you would like to share about your experience thus far? Semi structured Interview Protocol 2 (Case study students). Week 5 Revised 7/12/11 based on initial coding of first three observations and 1 st semi structured interview. Questions 2,5,7, 11,13,14,16,17 added 1. Has your interest in your project changed over the past few weeks? Explain. 2. What is the purpose of your project? 3. How has your research progressed over the past few weeks? Have you encountered any challenges/difficulties? Explain. How have you responded to these? 4. Have you had to modify any part of your experimental plan? Describe this process? How did you know what to do? 5. Are you following any established protocols in your lab? Explain them to me. Where do you think they came from? Hav e they ever been modified?
308 6. What sort of data have you collected so far? Have you done any analysis? What sort? Do you have any preliminary results? What are they? How close are you to completion? Will your project ever be complete? 7. Do you ever have down ti me in your lab? Why? Do trials take a long time to run? What do you do while you wait? Do you feel like you are using your time productively? 8. How has your comfort level in your lab environment changed science we last spoke? 9. Last time I asked you if you fe lt like a working contributor in the lab, an outsider just visiting, or somewhere in between. Do you still feel the same way as you did last time? Explain. 10. Describe the relationships you have developed with other people in your laboratory. Has your relatio nship with your mentor grown? How so? 11. You are mainly being mentored by a graduate student researcher. How do you feel about that? Do you feel like you interact enough with the PI of your lab? How often do you see the PI? 12. Describe a typical conversation you might have with your mentor. 13. Do you feel comfortable asking questions to your mentor? How do you feel about the way they respond to your questions? 14. Have you ever made a mistake in your laboratory? How did your mentor respond to you if you did? 15. Have you ex perienced more collaboration in your work? Explain why or why not. 16. Some students are working with another AESP student in the same lab. If you do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of working with another AESP student? 17. Has the way you think about science and/or the work that scientists do changed at all over the summer so far? In what ways? 18. Have any specific aspects of your experience influenced the way you think ab out science and the work that scientists do? Explain these aspects. 19. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience thus far? Semi structured Interview Protocol 3 (Case study students). Week 7 Revised 7/25/11 by adding questions 2,3, 4,5,9,10 and 13 following data collection and initial analysis of earlier observations 1. Did you make any changes to your research plan since we last spoke? Describe any modifications you made and how you went about doing so. 2. Did you finish your project? Wh y or why not? 3. Have you been working right up to the end, or were you done with data collection a while back? What have you been doing with your time? 4. What are your results? How did you achieve them? 5. Did you make any statistical analysis of your data? Did y ou have to make decisions about reducing the data, cutting out some of the data etc.? How did
309 you make those decisions? Was there any error in your results? Did you fun tests of significance? What does that mean? 6. Describe the feelings you have about your r esults? Are you satisfied? Proud? What has contributed to these feelings? 7. What do your results mean? What are the broader implications of your research if any? 8. Are your results valuable to your lab group? In what ways? How do you know? 9. How have you chosen to represent your results in your poster/presentation/paper? What led to these decisions? 10. Did you have the opportunity to observe other grad students/ members of your laboratory group giving research presentations? Explain this. 11. How did your interest in y our project change or not change over the course of your experience? Explain. 12. Describe the final levels of collaboration that you experienced in your lab. 13. Did you have or will you have any final interactions with the PI of your lab? 14. How significant are th e relationships that you have developed? Who will you miss? Who will miss you? Why do you feel this way? 15. In your own words, what has been the impact of this program for you personally? How has it influenced you? 16. Have any specific aspects of your experienc e influenced the way you think about science and the work that scientists do? Explain these aspects. 17. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience?
310 APPENDIX D CASE STUDY OBSERVATION PROTOCOL Participant name: _____________________________________ Date: _______________ Time: _________________ Nature of work (Description of the laboratory techniques and procedures that the apprentice is engaged in): Epistemic Involvement (Observational evidence of apprentice participation or lack thereof in the formulation of research questions and/or design of methodological protocols. e.g. Is the student involved in any decision making regarding the research process?): Collaboration (Record of apprentice engagement socia lly with others in the lab. e.g. Verbatim conversations, cooperative group work, shared responsibility for tasks etc.): Mentor Involvement (Record of mentor/apprentice interactions. e.g. Verbatim conversations, mentor help given etc.): Observer perc eptions of apprentice demeanor (e.g. Engaged? Happy? Irritated? Busy? Bored? Etc.): Observer perceptions of mentor demeanor (e.g. Willing? Available? Annoyed? Etc.): Record of conversations between observer and apprentice (e.g. What are you doing toda y? How is your research coming along? Are you liking it? Etc.): Record of conversations between observer and mentor (e.g. How is your apprentice doing in your lab? What sort of support are you planning on giving your apprentice today? Etc.):
311 APPENDI X E MENTOR SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Modified 8/3/2011 to account for observation data Grad Student Questions 1. Have you ever worked with high school students before? in your lab? 2. What were your reasons for taking a high school student in your lab this summer? 3. What benefits do you think a high school student experiences through participation in this program? Explain with specific examples. 4. Explain. 5. Could you briefly describe the project the st udent worked on this summer? 6. To what degree did the student take ownership of his or her project? Explain 7. Did the student make any personal contributions to the formulation of the research question/ design of the project? Why or why not? What were the rea sons for this level of involvement? 8. Did the student seem to feel comfortable working with your lab group? What evidence leads you to this understanding? 9. Would you say that the student felt like a working contributor in the lab, an outsider just visiting, o r somewhere in between? Explain. 10. In your estimation, what were the reasons for such student positioning? 11. Did you feel like the student was a valuable part of your team? 12. Were you ever frustrated or lose your patience with the student when they made mistakes ? How did you respond? 13. What will you do with the results of your students project? 14. enterprise over the course of the summer? If so, in what ways? 15. What factors do you think contr ibuted to these changes and/or their understanding of science? Explain. 16. Could you spend a few minutes telling me your personal philosophy of science? i.e. What is the status of scientific knowledge? How certain is it? What do scientists do? Do they always follow the scientific method? Is science universal or does it reflect the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced ? 17. Did you ever talk with the student about your personal philoso phy of science? Did any philosophical conversations come up? 18. Would you do this again? 19. How would you do it differently? Lessons learned? PI Questions 1. How many years have you been hosting a student in your lab? 2. What are your reasons for hosting a student? 3. What benefits do you think a high school student experiences through participation in this program? Explain with specific examples.
312 4. Explain. 5. Describe the nature of the scientific research that you do in your lab? 6. Did the student seem to feel comfortable working with your lab group? What evidence leads you to this understanding? 7. Would you say that the student felt like a working contributor in the lab, an outsider just visiting, or somewhere in between? Explain. 8. In your estimation, what were the reasons for such student positioning? 9. Did you feel like the student was a valuable part of your team? 10. What will your lab group do with the results of the students research? 11. Did you observe any changes in the stud enterprise over the course of the summer? If so, in what ways? 12. What factors do you think contributed to these changes and/or their understanding of science? Explain. 13. Could you spend a few minutes telling me your perso nal philosophy of science? i.e. What is the status of scientific knowledge? How certain is it? What do scientists do? Do they always follow the scientific method? Is science universal or does it reflect the social and political values, philosophical assump tions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced ? 14. Did you ever talk with the student about your personal philosophy of science? Did any philosophical conversations come up? 15. Would you do this again? 16. How would you do it differently? Less ons learned?
313 APPENDIX F IDEAS ABOUT SCIENCE SURVEY CODING RUBRIC 1. Empirical nature of scientific knowledge Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 1b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, 12, 13a, 13b prioritize observations, in ference, empirical evidence, or interpretation in establishing the claims of science. Scientific knowledge is about facts. Students answer some questions from a nave perspective and others from an informed perspective. Students may discuss the need of ac tually being present historically in order to know why dinosaurs became extinct. Students understand that scientific knowledge is based on observations and filtered interpretations of those observations. 2. Differences between theories and laws: Relevan t Questions Nave Mixture Informed 4, 9, 11, 13a, 13b Students see theories and laws as related in a hierarchy. Additionally, students may describe laws holding a higher status than theory. Students answer some questions from a nave perspective and othe rs from an informed perspective. Students conceptualize laws as descriptions of relationships and theories as inferred relationships. Theories and laws serve different purposes in science. They understand that theories and laws are equally well establishe d in science.
314 3. Creative and imaginative nature of scientific knowledge: Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 1b, 2, 10a, 10b Students think that creativity is very limited. They may only acknowledge creativity to occur in the beginning phases of scientific research. Students answer some questions from a nave perspective and others from an informed perspective. Creativity and imagination permeates all aspects from design and implementation to interpretation of results. 4. S cientific knowledge is subjective: Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 1a, 1b, 2, 5a, 5b, 14a, 14b Students think that science is purely objective. They think that scientists are not influenced at all by their prior belief systems. Students may a cknowledge that science is both subjective and objective. Students acknowledge that science is subjective, that is that scientists hold theoretical perspectives that influence their activity. 5. Scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded : Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 1a, 1b, 2, 5a, 5b, 14a, 14b Students describe science as universal and uninfluenced by the culture surrounding it. Students acknowledge both universal and socially and culturally embedded aspects of the genera tion of scientific knowledge. Students acknowledge that science is socially and culturally embedded.
315 6. Scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to change: Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 4, 5a, 5b, 6,7, 11, 12, 13a, 13b Students ma y believe that science knowledge is set in stone and never changes. Or they might believe that science is so relativistic that it is constantly in a state of change. Other students may believe that scientific knowledge can be proven with certainty. It is c hanging until it reaches an absolute state of authority. Students answer some questions from a nave perspective and others from an informed perspective. Students acknowledge that when science changes it does so because of both new evidence and reinterpre tation. 7. Myth of the scientific method: Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 1b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b Students think that most scientists follow a prescribed step wise procedure that results in correct established information when conducting scienti fic research. Students answer some questions from a nave perspective and others from an informed perspective. Students acknowledge that the scientific method may be used at times for the purposes of experimentation but acknowledge that other scientists may perform scientific research in ways that does not resemble the scientific method. For example, observational studies, or just by trial and error methods. Students may describe that scientists use the method in unique ways by reordering or eliminating c ertain steps
316 8. Scientific knowledge is constructed (Sandoval, 2005) Relevant Questions Nave Mixture Informed 3 Students think that scientific knowledge exists and is waiting to be discovered. Students describe a mixture of both discovery and construc tion of knowledge. Students discuss how scientists construct ideas and these constructions are and result in scientific knowledge.
317 LIST OF REFERENCES Abd El conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, Oregon. Abd El Khalick, F. (2002). The development of conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in the middle and high school years: A cross sectional st udy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Abd El Khalick, F., Belarmino, J., & Summers, R. (2012). Development and validation of a rubric to score the Views of Nature of Scienc e (VNOS) questionnaire. Paper presented at the 85 th NARST Annual International Conference. Indianapolis, IN. March, 2012. Abd El Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natur al. Science Education, 82, 417 437. Abd El Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673 699. Abd El Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok Naamon, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397 419. Abd El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science Teaching. 37, 1057 1095. Abraham, L.M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75, 229 232. Ak erson, V.L., Abd El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295 317. Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3 year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653 680. Akerson, V.L., & Volrich, M.L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first gra de internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43,377 394. Alters, B.J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39 55.
318 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scien ce literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press. Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2010). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship understanding of scientific inquir y. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10956 010 9261 4. Barab, S.A., & Hay, K.E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Sc ience Teaching, 38, 70 102. Bell, R.L. (1999). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Oregon. Bell, R.L., Blair, L.M., Crawford, B.A. & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487 509. Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & A bd El Khalick, F. (1998). Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction: An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1057 1061. Bell, R.L., Matkins, J.J., & Gansneder, B.M. (2010). Impacts of contextu al and explicit instruction on preservice science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tea.20402. dencies to promote student led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90, 400 419, Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum deve lopment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521 539. Bleicher, R.E. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1115 1133. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towar ds a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out of school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373 1388. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Resea rcher, 18, 32 42.
319 Brown, S.L., & Melear, C. (2007). Preservice 597. Buck, P.E. (2003). Authentic research experiences for Nevada high school teachers and students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 18, 573 597. Burgin, S.R., & Sadler, T.D. (2012). Consistency of practical and formal epistemologies held by participants of a research apprenticeship. Poster presented at the 85 th NARST Annual International C onference. Indianapolis, IN. March, 2012. Burgin, S.R., Sadler, T.D., & Koroly, M.J. (2011). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcome. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11165 010 9205 2. elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 695 721. Cartrette, D.P., & Mel roe Lehrman, B.M. (2011). Describing changes in undergraduate Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11165 011 9235 4. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21 st century : Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3 rd ed., pp. 507 536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through quali tative analysis. London: SAGE. Charney, J., Hmelo Silver, C.E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practice. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 195 213. Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175 218. Cobern, W.W., & Loving, C.C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philo sophy of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 73 82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Cooley, W.W., & Bassett, R.D. (1961). Evaluations and follow up study of a summe r science and mathematics programs for talented secondary school students. Science Education, 45, 209 216. Cooley, W.W., & Klopfer, L.E. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 73 80.
320 Davis, D .D. (1999, April). The research apprenticeship program: Promoting careers in biomedical sciences and the health professions for minority populations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Ontario. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39 72. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 38, 39 72. Farland ining by side with scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 412 421. Farland Smith, D. (2012). Personal and social interactions between young girls and scientists: Examining critical aspec ts for identity construction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 1 18. Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Revie w of Research in Education, 25, 99 125. Germann, P.J., Haskins, A., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475 499. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1 967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Jo urnal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 251 271. Hackett, E.J., Croissant, J., & Schneider, B. (1992). Industry, academe, and the values of undergraduate engineers. Research in Higher Education, 33, 275 295. Haigh, M., France, B., & Forret, M. (2005). I classrooms an expression of scientific inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 27, 215 226.
321 Hanuscin, D., Akerson, B., & Phillipson Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical sc ience content course for preservice elementary science teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912 935. Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hay, K.E., & Barab, S.A. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 281 322. Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 7 9, 171 212. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science Education, 88, 28 54. science. Sc ience Education, 84, 51 70. Hsu, P. L., van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. practice during a science internship: Reflections from an activity theoretic perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1243 1266. Hume, A., & Coll, R. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student experienced curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28, 43 62. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S.L., & Seymour, E. (2 007). Becoming a scientist: The role of development. Science Education, 91, 36 74. Irez, S., & Cakir, M. (2006). Critical reflective approach to teach the nature of science: A rationa le and review of strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3, 7 23. Kang, N. activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140 165 Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 45, 470 496. Khishfe, R., & Abd El Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instr Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551 578.
322 Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in S cience Teaching, 43, 395 418. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lawless, J.G., & Rock, B.N. (1998). Student scientist partnerships and data quality. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 5 13. review of the research. Jour nal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331 359. classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916 929. Led erman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831 880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lederman, N.G., & Abd El Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83 126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Lederman, N .G., Abd El Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). View of nature conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497 521. Lederman, J.S ., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL. Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225 239. Lederman, N., Wade, P.D., & Bell, R.L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: What is the Nature of Our Assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595 615. Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teach science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721 734.
323 Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted s science. School Science & Mathematics, 102, 114 123. Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on preservice Scien ce Teacher Education, 20, 553 582. Loundagin, J. (1999). The Checks Lab. Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chec.lab.html Martin, B., Kass, J., & Brouwer, W. (1990). Authentic science: A d iversity of meaning. Science Education, 74, 541 554. Means, B. (1998). Melding authentic science, technology, and inquiry based teaching: Experiences of the GLOBE program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 97 105. Meichtry, Y.J. (1992). Infl uencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389 407. Moss, D.M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Sc ience Education, 23, 771 790. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K 8. Washin gton DC: National Academic Press. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K 12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K 12 science education standards. Board on science e ducation, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. understandings of the Nature of Science. Science and Educa tion, 7, 579 594; potential of practice based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234 266. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203 218.
324 about community. Journal of Resear ch in Science Teaching, 40, 692 720. Palmquist, B.C., & Finley, F.N. (1997). Preservice science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595 615. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity 17 21. Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. Raphael, J., Tobias, S., & Greenberg, R. (1999). Research experiences as a component of science and math ematics teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 147 158. Richmond, G., & Kurth, L.A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school of science. Jo urnal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 677 697. Ritchie, S.M., & Rigano, D.L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 799 815. Roberts, L.F., & Wassersug, R.J. (2009). Does doin g scientific research in high school correlate with students staying in science? A half century retrospective study. Research in Science Education, 39, 251 256. Roth, W. M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 31, 197 223. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roth, W. abou t knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5 30. Rubba, P.A., & Anderson, H.O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess Science Education, 62, 4 49 458. project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 945 956. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate sci science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 201 219.
325 Sabatini, D.A. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experience. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123 98 102. Sadler, T.D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235 256. Sadler, T.D., Chambers, W.F., & Zeidler, D .L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue, International Journal of Science Education, 89, 634 656. influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634 656. theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369 392. Scharmann, L.C., Smith, M.U., James, M.C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27 41. Schn, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schn, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J.J. Schwab & P. Brandwin (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3 103). Cambridge, MA: Harv ard University Press. science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 727 771. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing view of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610 645. Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S.L., & Deantoni, T. (20 04). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three year study. Science Education, 88, 493 534. Smith, M., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R., McComas, W.F., & Clough, M. (1997). How great is the dis agreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101 1103. Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
326 Stake, J.E., & Mares, K.R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1065 1088. Stake, J.E., & Mares, K.R. (2005). Evaluating the impact of science enrichment progr effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 359 375. Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities in practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 43 71. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific Literary Papers, 1, 1 14. University of Oxford, Department of External Studies. Trum teaching: Implications for the content of preservice science teacher education. Science Education, 77, 301 317. Van Eijck, M., Hsu, P. L., & Roth, W. M. (2009). Translations of scientific practice to 634. Varelas, M., House, R., & Wenzel, S. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Education, 89, 492 516. Wagne through non traditional writing to learn experiences in the science classroom. In R. Pint & D. Couso (Eds.). Contributions from science education research (pp. 307 318). Spring er. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112 143. uth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109 130. about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1431 1463. Wu, H. K., & Wu, C. epistemologies and explanation skills in inquiry based learning environments. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11165 010 9167 4.
327 Yacoubian, H.A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1229 1252. Yen, C., & Huang, S. (1998, April). The authentic learning of science in preservice biology teachers in an open inquiry research on tree frogs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA. E RIC Document No. 418 865. instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807 838. Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Har vard Educational Review, 57, 23 48. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343 36.
328 BIOGRAPHICA L SKETCH Stephen Randall Burgin graduated from the University of Florida in 2002 with a degree in chemistry. He then com pleted in science education in 2003 from the University of Florida Stephen then taught high school chemi stry at the P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School in Gainesville, FL for six years. While teaching, Stephen earned his degree in science education in 2009 from the University of Florida arch experiences in science and their impa ct on learner understandings of nature of science. His work has been published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching and Research in Science Education. This summer written for pra cticing science teachers will be published in The Science Teacher. Stephen has presented his research at numerous international conferences for science education. Upon completing his doctorate in the summer of 2012, Stephen will join the faculty of Old Do minion University in Norfolk, VA as an assistant professor of science education in the department of STEM Education and Professional studies within the College of Education. Stephen, his wife Rachael and his daughter Leah are very much looking forward to t heir move.